So, we have this peculiar situation here in Iceland that essentially means that @Facebook is inherently influencing our upcoming parliamentary elections with a "computer says no". And this has to do with frames or badges that some users put on their profile pictures.
So, bit background. Iceland is a multi-party system, and each and every vote counts. @Facebook is also the largest social media platforms in Iceland and much of the discussions about politics and whom to vote for takes place there.
In order to visually show that you support one party or another, the parties have used the "frame" function, so that there is this little design around your pretty profile picture, showing whom you're supporting this year.
However, this function is now only available to certain parties, because of some... development issues? I don't know exactly, but it seems as if we are not able to create new "frames" for political parties, meaning that only some political parties have frames.
What does this mean? Yes, it means that those who are more politically visually represented on the platforms make it look like they are more popular. This means that the parties that do not have frames do not seem as popular. This creates biases.
If only five parties out of eight (random number) can utilize this function, then that means that some parties get more exposure than others. More chances to reach out to voters, to show how popular they are. This is influencing elections.
This has been brought up to @Facebook support but there is this "computer says no" attitude going on there. Either all parties have this function or none, that only some of the parties can utilize the function is not fair, and is influencing the elections.
I sincerely believe that @Facebook does not want to influence elections, either here in Iceland or elsewhere. And I think if they wanted to, they would not use "frames" as a way to do so.
But this is a small thing that actually matters, and disproportionately so in a small country that is very reliant on @Facebook for their political discourse. So, if you have any leads on how it would be possible to fix this, my DMs are open!
I want to write a long twitter thread about this tweet from @techvsterrorism (which is funded by @Google@Microsoft@Facebook and @Telefonicahighly) and is misleading and misrepresenting the value of FOSS in a self-proclaimed purpose of battling tech against terrorism. (1/15)
Both @Google and @Microsoft have been utilizing open-source software for the developement of their products. Althoug historically against FOSS, @microsoft acquired @github in 2018 - the beacon of open source and @google "believes that open source is good for everyone".(2/15)
This post misrepresents what FOSS is in a scaremongering way: That because people can establish social networks through decentralised platforms, with no central authority and control, that will facilitate the creation of terrorist organizations.(3/15)
1850: Deutsche Presseverleger wollen Urheberrecht auf Nachrichten durchsetzen, weil die neu eingetroffene Technologie des Telegramms ihr Geschäftsmodell ruiniert. Es wird abgelehnt. 1/26 #THREAD#copyright#Artikel11#saveyourinternet
1886: Deutsche Presseverleger wollen, dass Nachrichten in der Berner Übereinkunft urheberrechtlich geschützt werden. Es wird abgelehnt, und eine Urheberrechtsausnahme für Nachrichten wird etabliert. 2/26 #copyright#Artikel11#saveyourinternet
1908: Deutsche Presseverleger wollen beim Berliner Treffen für die Berner Übereinkunft die Möglichkeit der Reproduktion von Nachrichten durch das Urheberrecht einschränken. Es wird abgelehnt, da das Urheberrecht nur für kreative Schöpfungen gilt. 3/26 #copyright#Artikel11
1850: German Press publishers want #copyright of news because the newly arrived technology of the telegram is ruining their business model. It is rejected. THREAD 1/26
1886: German Press Publishers want news to be covered by copyright in the Berne convention. It is rejected, and Ccopyright exception for news is established. 2/26
1908: German Press Publishers want to limit the possibility of reproduction of news by #copyright in the Berlin meeting for the Berne convention. It is rejected, as copyright is intended for inherently creative production. 3/26