Eyes on pages and messages on social media

Role of spreading news by social media

Business model innovation is an iterative and potentially circular process.

The business model for social media depends on “eyes on the page” to sell advertising, which makes the author at such an account looks forwards to bringing something sensational or eye-catching.

Looking at the American online social network service accounts on Facebook (part of the company Meta Platforms) in particular, we could see that Facebook helped extreme messages to spread, whilst ordinary messages were often put aside. Strangely enough, the American online social network service Facebook has a very weird ‘security’ system by which photos of historical and biblical events are censored, whilst sex photos and videos with violence and awful language do not seem to be a problem to have them published on Facebook.

Not appropriate content

Last year I got more than once notices from Facebook that a link to some of my websites (namely the religious ones, like my ecclesia) articles could not be placed on Facebook pages because so-called, not appropriate. However, there was nothing obscene, erotic or violent in those articles, but rather a view of a political or religious event. While those messages were not allowed to be published, I could see messages on my Facebook account  that I found totally ethically irresponsible and got Friend proposals from sexgirls and even people offering all sorts of porn.

What to show

We can only conclude that social media have come to decide for themselves what they will or will not show to others. In fact, it is this selective reporting that has caused many young people to leave Facebook in the last year, as they had posted messages that their friends did not come to see, while they did see other unsolicited messages from non-friends, apparently out of advertising considerations.

In the period Donald Trump was making a lot of use of Facebook and Twitter it was clear that social media had a double way of looking at things to be published. Certain critical voices were silenced before lots of fake news spread by Donald Trump was silenced.

Carrying messages from different people with different opinions

Facebook changed its name into Meta after many had given their opinion about the strange actions that company had taken in the political turbulence. They more than once had decided to turn down some speech, forgetting that normally they would be considered just a platform for carrying messages of different people of different opinions. Leaving behind the notion that they are merely a platform, certain social media companies coming to reject some content, implicitly lending credibility to those they allowed to use the platform.

Algorithms

Clearly, they took a stand by allowing certain people to place notices undisturbed, whilst they did not allow other messages to be published. They entrench themselves behind the algorithms that would determine what can be approved or what must be rejected for publication. But if that is the case, they have not set up their system properly or they have based it on a few keywords which, on their own, say nothing or give the wrong image. For example, some articles about the Hebrew people leaving Egypt after the plagues did not receive a notification on Facebook, because “slavery” and “putting blood of a lamb at the doorposts” were mentioned. The killing of Christ seemed also to have been a problem, him being nailed on a wooden stake. A pieta of a 16th-century painter was not allowed to be published on one of my pages by Facebook, because of ‘nudity’. Also messages of some million out of the eight million animals and plant species in the world that are threatened with extinction, mostly due to human activities, seems to create problems for the ‘machines’ of Facebook, to allow such subject to be known by other Facebook readers. This whilst for ridiculous videos where people can laugh at accidents have no problem being published.

Fake news and debate

That nearly 1 million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, most of them within ten years, might be for Facebook fake news, but in our eyes it is something which we seriously should take into account. In case it would not be true, I think it is still something which has to be publicised for an open debate. People should made to think about the possibility of the ecosystems deteriorating rapidly. At all times there should be warning people around, and writers who dare to examine certain situations, be it political or environmental.

Exchange of ideas and Free speech

It does not matter if one believes or does not believe that at least 680 vertebrate species have gone extinct since the 16th century, or that Corona could be a killing virus, or that one can protect people by vaccinations for certain diseases. Ideas should be able to be exchanged. And when there is a messaging platform, such platform should not decide what it is going to publish or not, when it has given a person or group an account to publish. Otherwise, they just should mention to the account holder that this person is not in line with their policy so that that writer could go to another medium. In the end that is what Mr. Trump seemingly has decided himself, to create his own platform.
Though he claims that his platform shall be open for everyone to say their ideas, we wonder how much is going to be allowed to be publisised and in which way people shall be allowed to react to bring truth forward on Truth Social. At the moment we here in Europe can not test that platform of D. Trump, but I am curious which and how the Americans are going to use it.
Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski was pleased to have Truth Social on board of his company.

The partnership between two of the nation’s emerging free speech platforms — completed this week — means Truth Social will be ending its beta testing and controlled account creation and moving quickly to erase a backlog of consumers who have been waiting a few weeks to join the platform.

“Yesterday, Truth Social and Rumble took a major stride toward rescuing the internet from the grip of the Big Tech tyrants,”

on April 22 2022 said Devin Nunes, a former GOP congressman from California who took over as CEO of Trump Media and Technology Group, which owns Truth Social, in January.

Truth Social, TMTG’s social media platform, calls itself

“a Big Tech alternative that seeks to create a free-speech haven without viewpoint discrimination or oppressive censorship.”

Roger Jason Stone, long-time friend of Donald Trump, and co-founder of a Washington, D.C.–based lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly.

Despite claims that it’s a service for those who like unfettered free speech, we hear messages of people who got their messages censored. Even the American conservative political consultant and lobbyist Roger Stone, longtime Republican who worked on the campaigns of Republican politicians, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, found a message on “radical Islam,” including a picture of an old Trump campaign button and the comment,

“Trump also warns again a growing threat of terrorism by radical Islam mix in the predicted the 9/11 attack.”

got flagged for “sensitive content,” warning users that it

“may not be suitable for all audiences”

and forcing them to click a button to see Stone’s supposedly inflammatory message. The so called free platform also having numerous rules, among them that users cannot make posts critical of Trump and AI clicking away everything which does not fit the picture of Trumpism.

As for Stone, this isn’t the first time he’s gotten into trouble on far right social media services. Last August he was temporarily booted from the microblogging site targeted to American conservatives, Gettr, which the Senior Adviser to the Trump 2020 re-election campaign Jason Miller claimed was a mistake as they were erasing multiple Stone copycat accounts. Stone, though, initially blamed it on his ongoing feud with fellow rightwing whisperer and chief strategist in the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump Steve Bannon.

I still get the message

Truth Social is America’s “Big Tent” social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating against political ideology.

At the moment, Truth Social is available for U.S. users only, but rest assured, we are working hard to make it available in your country. When Truth Social becomes available for you, we’ll make an announcement. Stay tuned!

Access denied

You do not have access to truthsocial.com.

The site owner may have set restrictions that prevent you from accessing the site. Contact the site owner for access or try loading the page again.

Generation Z

Problem with generation Z is that they are not reading newspapers nor news websites or news blogs, but mostly get their information from the titles and ‘stories’ on Facebook and Instagram. Luckily there are also a few who use news apps to get the latest news, or the news “hot from the press”, because they do not want to wait until the following morning to get to read what happened in the world in the daily newspaper.

For a lot of people ‘old news’ is no news which makes it difficult for the daily and weekly newspapers, weekly and monthly magazines to get readers to read their more in-depth articles or to have a column written on something that happened in the week or a few weeks ago.

Consumers and information sources

On one of my other websites (Some View on the World) I placed several articles on this stringent matter of how consumers have come to depend on information sources not filtered or managed by information professionals and on how the press might have come into a crisis moment, were one can wonder if newspapers are slowly dying or that we might come to see that they are changing and finding new ways to survive.

The last decade we have seen how fake news could go around in the world like it was nothing or just a lovely bun with clutted cream. We could witness how people could spread misinformation using social media, having many people to believe what they were telling was of should be the truth, because they could read it on so many messages. (Forgetting that it were all shared messages from that one source of fake news.) It is all part of the consequences of our digital environment how we allow social media messages play a part in our life and in the way we want our society to evolve. As I wrote in other messages on other blogs

The problem with all the news which gets to us is that it is not always easy to recognise a message is a valuable correct informative article versus misinformative or mendacious reporting. {Consequences of our digital environment}

It might be considered “good” that the digital environment today allows a voice for all, but it can also hide some dangers, certainly when not all are those who they claim and behind some websites and blogs are big organisations. there are certain people who are very smart in hiding falsehoods or in covering fake news as something we have to believe. We may not forget that some are quick to believe anything that looks credible, and not may or not willing to take time to verify certain messages, even when they look incredible. But the weirder or more special something may seem, the easier it is to share it on social media.

Carried away from reality

Furthermore, lots of people are carried away from reality by the impact of popular blogs by influencers who seem to have a great ‘influence’ on youngsters and let them imprint their thoughts. On social media, there has been created a world of illusion where many eyes come fixated on the screen of their smartphone. For many, it has become an escape from their daily business, the drudgery of daily work. By looking at the many messages for minutes after minutes, they feel at ease and have no feeling any more with the world around them. They have shut it out for some time, and as a recent survey showed, for those between 16 and 24years old, living in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, this goes up to three hours in a day. Without their knowledge, many are carried away by the traps laid out in front of them by those social media and advertising companies. Without realising it, they are sucked into a story that certain companies and individuals want them to believe. They are fed lies to distract them. At the same time there are people who make use of them to get them a certain picture of the world which would be ‘dangerous for them’. From those impulses given by those companies and sponsored writers they get the feeling they are nobody without those products and they dish out fear, fear and more fear.

The other self

In 2014 I wrote already that Facebook and other social media tempted people to present themselves differently than they are. From being glued to such media apps many created for themselves a “would like” world. Also, looking at many profiles and time lines of Facebook users we can see how many present themselves differently than they are and bring stories which are used to place themselves higher in the rankings, aiming to get as many likes as possible. Their suggorate or placebo world, in the end, does not really give them the feeling they would have loved to see. Because they themselves do know the truth and do know it is not really like it is, shall become more dissatisfied and frustrated because they will find themselves further and further away from the world they live in and the one they imagine they should live in. Though we notice now that many are caught up in that ‘would be world’ and lost track of the real world.

Friends and isolation

Aso in that world of ‘fake friends’, those Facebook friends not being real friends and even not real comrades, people are going to feel more and more isolated, on their own, often also because they forgot to make time for making real-life friends, at school or at work.

Whilst many were carried away by stories Facebook and Instagram wanted them to see, they often have no idea which messages they did not get to see. From the messages we place on the net we clearly could see how strange the “Cancel culture” of Meta Com. works and how it hinders free speech, which is not only important in a democracy but is also essential to it. If people get censored for what they are saying, because someone considers it might offend someone else it could become like walking on thin ice. Meta may not forget that their clients choose their ‘friends’ and choose what to read or leave aside those messages they do not want to read. It should be up to the Facebook user to make himself the choice what would be of interest for him and to receive the messages from people he indicated.

Looking at my own household members, what they receive from Meta, sometimes could be very weird. For example I or my wife get messages that one of us would like so and so (even when we hate that party) or would be with one or another (even when we do not know those pictured) at such or such event (when we are at home and would never go to such a mentioned event). This clearly smells like misleading advertising and misusing our accounts for such lucrative purposes.

Licensed to use content

Several people do forget that a few years ago Facebook, the second-largest digital advertising platform in the world, and Instagram changed their contracts with their users, giving the company (then Facebook, now Meta) the right to use member’s photos in advertising campaigns. Other companies followed and came as such in control of the placed content.

A photo posted on Twitter e.g. remains the intellectual property of the user but Twitter’s terms give the company “a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense)”. In practice, that gives Twitter almost total control over the image and the ability to do just about anything with it. The company claims the right to use, modify or transmit it your photo any way. Twitter’s terms, to which every new member must agree,

“grant extremely broad rights over your content… With these terms companies are saying ‘you own your content, but we can just use it however we want.'”

says Callum Sinclair, partner in the Intellectual Property and Technology group of law firm, .

Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group, a non-profit group that campaign for users rights online, believes that many terms of service are confusing and misleading for users. He says:

“A lot of the time it really isn’t transparent what these agreements mean. People haven’t really understood what they have entered into. Often companies will over-egg what they need, and it’s a land grab for users’ rights and content.”

The Terms of use of Facebook is extremely long, so many users have not read the whole policy. Its terms of service, data use and cookie use policy span more than 14.000 words over eight separate pages and would take even the quickest reader more than two hours to dig through.

Facebook has a license to use your content in any way it sees fit, and they do not mind using your photo in advertisement texts of for articles you are not connected with or even do not agree with. What we have noticed among ourselves in our family on a regular basis with messages we have received separately or have seen in others.
Worse is that Facebook can transfer or sub-license its rights over a user’s content to another company or organisation if needed. What a lot of people seem to miss is that  Facebook’s license does not end upon the deactivation or deletion of a user’s account, content is only released from this license once all other users that have interacted with the content have also broken their ties with it (for example, a photo or video shared or tagged with a group of friends).

Pioritising profits

Whistleblower Frances Haugen claimed, in October last year, Facebook has prioritised profits over safety and leaked thousands of pages of documents on the tech company. That year the tech giant also imposed a block on posts from newspaper publishers in response to new laws in Australia that would force tech firms to pay for links to news stories. It was clear that big tech firms are “exploiting their dominance” and therefore these issues were also spoken off at the G7 summit in June 2021.

Haugen told CBS’s 60 Minutes:

“Facebook over and over again has shown it chooses profit over safety. It is subsidising, it is paying for its profits with our safety.

“Its own research is showing that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarising – it is easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions.

“Facebook has realised that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they will click on less ads, they will make less money.”

We also cannot help but think that Facebook is more attentive and prefers to publish and distribute messages that please people’s grievances, such as sex and violence in sales pitches, rather than discussing situations of violence and things to dislike.

Musk versus Twitter

Elon Musk, who has built the electric car company Tesla into a global force and revolutionised the industry in the process, made a huge bid and initially accepted a board seat before changing tack and turning down the offer to become a director. He insisted that his moves were not about making money, but to want to turn the company into more of a platform for free speech. He believes it would be better off out of the public markets. The site has been accused of stifling alternative viewpoints, with the banning of former US president Donald Trump following the Capitol Hill riots in 2021 one such example.

Twitter and Mr Musk were meeting on Sunday to discuss the deal, according to the Wall Street Journal, which said the social media site’s board were now “more receptive to a deal”. Late last week, it emerged that he had since he kicked off a takeover bid for the business secured $47bn in financing for the deal, which included using part of his stake in Tesla as collateral.

Twitter will later this week report its first quarter earnings, with analysts expecting its earnings to have dipped.

Digital Services Act

Meanwhile, on Saturday morning, after a sixteen-hour marathon meeting, European negotiators reached an agreement on the Digital Services Act, setting out the conditions under which major Internet companies such as Meta and Google will have to comply with new and strict rules in Europe, or face heavy fines.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is one of those ambitious proposals in the EU trying to harmonise the process in which users can notify illegal content to the platforms, after which the platforms actually then have to take that down or take any other content moderation action. As such the DSA imposes a series of new obligations on large Internet platforms.

The emphasis was on keeping illegal content and products off the Internet. But the European Parliament approved a text in January that deviates significantly from the original version of the European Commission. For example, the Parliament added restrictions on personalised advertising based on sensitive information such as race, sexual orientation and political affiliation.

Until now every European member state had slightly different timeframes and different procedures for how such a notice and action system worked. One of the aims of the Digital Services Act was to harmonize all these procedures and have a specific set of rules for all these different companies in all the different member states. A very big second part of that proposal was that it also created a tiered set of transparency obligations for a range of different entities, ranging from intermediaries – what they’re calling ordinary platforms – and then a very specific category of so-called very large online platforms.

These strict new provisions seem to have made it through Friday’s final consultation, which went deep into the night. Although there were still a lot of question marks on Saturday morning about what exactly had been knocked off.

The essence of the DSA is that illegal content, such as hate speech, is removed from the Internet more quickly. Harmful disinformation, war propaganda and the sale of counterfeit products must also be nipped in the bud more quickly. The basic principle is that what is illegal offline should also be illegal online, stressed European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager on Twitter. But free speech advocates fear that the new rules will force the big internet platforms to be overly strict in their moderation.

Internet giants such as Meta will also have to allow inspection of the algorithms that determine which posts a user sees on Facebook or Instagram.

There will also be a ban on so-called ‘dark patterns’, which are manipulation techniques by which internet companies sometimes try to entice people into making certain choices that are disadvantageous to them. This includes misleading pop-up messages that encourage people to click ‘yes’ to the use of all cookies, while other choices are more difficult to find.

The new rules are stricter for the largest platforms, with at least 45 million users. Smaller organisations will escape some of the provisions or be given more time to implement them.

Changing platforms

Looking at Facebook, which looses popularity by the youngsters, they are trying to reduce the financial losses of those going away from them to other platforms. Youngsters now found in TikTok their big friend, whilst they think their parents nor other adults can follow them.

On the new platform they place more moving pictures instead of text messages. This makes that they become even more allianated from news messages.

A free society depends on the free exchange of ideas and honestly, the most important issues are the ones that are most controversial. Like with cancel culture, outrage culture is problematic because people are so quick to become outraged about a video, tweet, post, or action without assessing the context or taking time to fact-check.
With fake news, cancel culture, and outrage culture or online shaming , people are quick to believe and assume things that may not be true. We must be skeptical, open to ideas that are different than our own, and take time to learn the truth.

In the mean time we have to take care that free speech is guaranteed on whatever platform that can reach several people.

---

Please find daily news coverage and more related articles on Some View on the World
to which you are invited to subscribe so that you might find notification of newly published articles.

+

Preceding

Subcutaneous power for humanity 3 Facing changing attitudes

Subcutaneous power for humanity 5 Loneliness, Virtual and real friends

2014 Social contacts

Americans wrongly informed about situation in Europe

Social media a destabilisation tool in the Middle East and Syrian conflict

Social media, sympathy & shocks

Mountains of information, disinformation and breaking away

2016 in review Politics #1 Year of dissonance

A busy 2017 #3 Fake, gossip and real news

To protect our democratic system #1 Danger of fake and malicious social media accounts

To protect our democratic system #2 Online platforms

Disinformation evolving threat

Defeating populism in the EU by education of the young people

2019 was #3 a Year of much deceit in the News World

2019 was #4 a Year of much deceit in Belgium and the rest of Europe

Manipulated content on social media

Lower and middle-class youth becoming tiny cogs in a larger whole that they cannot control

Undermining security and democracy via the Internet

New social platform supposedly open to truth

The Truth Social update

Social Putin

++

Additional reading

1. Disscusion Questions
2. Lonely in the crowd
3. Illusion of Separateness
4. Identity Crisis By millennials
5. Be realistic, do not pretend
6. Being in isolation #4 Man’s greediness, slackness, internet, friends and social contacts
7. Social media and asylum seekers
8. Mountains of information, disinformation and breaking away
9. Mass Media’s Deception Causing Division
10. Shaped by our thoughts so be careful for influencers
11. 2020 Talking Points – Stuck with polemics, histrionics, and ad hominem denunciation
12. Disconnecting to reconnect
13. Consequences of our digital environment
14. Time to add value
15. Written-down thoughts
16. Gossip and fake news, opposite fact checking and facts presenting
17. Former president of the U.S.A. launches new social media platform
18. My View On Trump’s Truth Social
19. As Expected
20. Conspiracy theories in plenty-fold
21. Media Literacy
22. The Media and Democracy
23. Social Media and Truth
24. Why social media presence matters in journalism
25. Traditional News Turns into The Journalism We Know Now
26. Consumers have come to depend on information sources not filtered or managed by information professionals
27. Politics in our Digital Age
28. The Ever-Evolving Industry of Journalism: its Quest to Survive in a Digital World
29. The First Great Information War
30. Don’t Just Log Out. Deactivate Facebook
31. How to save Journalism in 2022
32. Mississippi journalists discuss the evolution of daily newspapers
33. Newspapers: Dying or Changing
34. The Social Media Kindness Project
35. “Our World” Moving from Blogspot to WordPress
36. What makes you following Christ and Facebook Groups
37. No Facebook any more for institutions and organisations
38. Availability of Jeshuaists on Facebook
39. Find us on a new Facebook page
40. Notification and news feed for Facebook users
41. For Facebook subscribers
42. Help us to get better known

+++

Related

1. EU Law Targets Big Tech Over Hate Speech, Disinformation
2. Yes. We Are Living The Clown-World Dream; Know What I Mean?–1984–What For? Have We Learned Nothing? “Lance, Lance! Lanceee! Don’t Shit Where You Eat” You’ll Have To Scrool Down
3. How to turn Of Facebook Marketplace notifications
4. Rome Man Jailed After Facebook Messaging Woman
5. Twitter bans ads that contradict science on climate change
6. Facebook flags pna posts
7. DM Me, Hun
8. Facebook Page Complaint Scam
9. Future of the Metaverse and Games in VR Technology
10. Stepping Out in Faith
11. The Making of ‘Weird and Peculiar Tales.’
12. Discord as a News Source
13. Best Times To Post On Social Media
14. Giving Things Away
15. Today is Monday,A day Of Rest in southeast,Happy sit home from here.
16. Facebook a network that has been causing my anxiety disorder to go up.
17. Investors urge vote against 2 Meta directors over CEO ties
18. Is it possible to actually own something in the metaverse? Blockchains and NFTs, according to a law scholar, do not safeguard virtual property.
19. Don Jr. Actually Thinks His Drudge-Y News App Will Disrupt Tech Giants Like Google And Apple
20. Why Trump’s Truth Social Will be a Success
21. I Can’t Speak Truth
22. Truth Social, Trump’s Social Media App Amazingly Gets 170,000 In First Day Downloads
23. Trump favors Putin, GOP moves away from him
24. Truth Social Well I have tried for quite a few days now and still can’t get in to register for this social media site.
25. Trump Is Reportedly Whining Like A Baby That Truth Social Appears To Be Yet Another Of His Failed Products
26. Liberals Demand Big Tech Preemptively Censor Trump’s Truth Social
27. Donald Trump Can’t Stop Whining About His Failing Social Media App Truth Social
28. The Truth about Social
29. Truth Social Is the name of Trump’s social media platform, and of course it’s a failure. For once, I don’t think Trump is even too blame though
30. Nunes Provides Important Update on Progress of Trump’s ‘Truth Social’
31. Facebook makes $1.9 mil promoting Trump’s social app
32. Truth Social is already circling the drain
33. I Can Finally Speak Truth
34. Not Even Donald Trump Is Using His Failing, Rinky Dink Attempt At A Twitter Clone Truth Social
35. Trump’s New Platform Truth Social Makes Major Announcement
36. Donald Trump’s TRUTH Social Is Failing Bigly, With Signups Down By 93% Since Its Launch
37. Roger Stone Claims He Was ‘Censored’ On Truth Social, Trump’s Free Speech Social Media App Not Even He Uses Much
38. The [lack of] truth about Truth Social
39. Trump’s Truth Social App Is Bombing So Hard That Top Executives Are Quitting
40. As Expected
41. Stock in Trump-linked SPAC falls after Truth Social executives resign
42. The Future of Trump’s Truth Social App Is Looking Bleak
43. Trump’s Truth Social reportedly lost two critical executives
44. The CEO Of Trump’s Badly Failing Social Media App Hilariously Claims That They Are ‘Beating Twitter’
45. Trump Has a Failing Social Network Because He’s Not Rich Enough To Buy Twitter
46. Devin Nunes Is Still Trying To Spin The Failing Truth Social App As Somehow Better Than Twitter While Begging Elon Musk To Sign Up
47. Trump’s Already Badly Failing Social Media Network Is Now Crashing Regularly
48. Jimmy Kimmel Is Amused By The Ridiculous Excuses Being Offered For Why Trump’s Truth Social Keeps Crashing
49. The Anti Facts Movement
50. Spotting Bullshit – A Needlessly In-Depth Guide
51. Metaliteracy Explored in Deliberative Conversation about Identifying and Resisting Misinformation
52. Facebook and Its Misinformation Campaign Against Tik-Tok
53. New Jersey jumps into disinformation fight
54. Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy
55. Pinterest Becomes First Social Media Platform To Ban Climate Misinformation
56. Sydney Becomes Immune to Misinformation
57. Communicating Today for a #HealthierTomorrow 
58. Why Elon Musk must not buy Twitter
59. Book review: Guardians of Liberty: Freedom of the Press and the Nature of News, by Linda Barrett Osborne
60. Suppressing Contentious Material – Misinformation – the new Seditious Libel
61. For Russian diplomats, disinformation is part of the job
62. Labelling Fake News: The Politics of Regulating Disinformation in Thailand
63. Obama says he has regrets surrounding disinformation in 2016 election
64. Campus Curbs Spread of Misinformation by Simply Not Providing Any Information
65. Dr. Dan Wilson: The Cult Of Misinformation
66. Misinformation madness
67. Although research has debunked the idea that COVID-19 vaccinations cause infertility, disinformation still exists.
68. Lies that ‘might’ eventually come true seem less unethical
69. What’s Next for the Digital Services Act
70. Online Ads Can Be More Harmful Than We Think
71. The Sunday Show: A Conversation with evelyn douek
72. Fixing the Digital Services Act to Address “Dark Patterns”
73. The Digital Services Act: How is Europe Planning to Regulate Tech?
74. EU agrees on rules to require Facebook, Google, others to tackle illegal content online