How to stop pesky ‘conspiracy theories’ (information they don’t like) from gaining traction online has become the number one preoccupation of social media overlords. Now they may have a solution.

Researchers at the university of Sheffield in the UK have developed a ‘precognition’ system that they say can predict who will spread ‘disinformation’ online before they even do it.

The ‘artificial intelligence-based algorithm’ can “accurately predict (79.7 per cent) which Twitter users are likely to share content from unreliable news sources before they actually do it,” a press release states.

The algorithm works by first identifying which Twitter users “mostly tweet about politics or religion,” compared to those who just share selfies and meaningless tripe.

So the algorithm leaves serious tweeters alone, and the tripe is eliminated, right? No, the other way around.

Another factor the algorithm takes into account is that “Twitter users who share disinformation use impolite language more frequently than users who share reliable news sources.”

FUCK.

The research involved grouping Twitter users into two categories, “those who have shared unreliable news sources and those who only share stories from reliable news sources.”

There is no explanation of what is a reliable news source, and what constitutes ‘unreliable’, so that was seemingly just decided upon by the University personnel. You can probably guess how that went.

The researchers also say that those who spread ‘disinformation’ more often use words like ‘liberal’, ‘government’, ‘media’, and often mention ‘Islam’.

You can see where this is going now.

The researchers say that Findings “could help governments and social media companies… design more effective models for tackling the spread of disinformation.”

In other words this will help Facebook and Twitter censor people spreading information they don’t want on their platforms.

“Social media has become the primary platform for spreading disinformation, which is having a huge impact on society and can influence people’s judgement of what is happening in the world around them,” said Dr Nikos Aletras, Lecturer in Natural Language Processing, University of Sheffield.

Censoring people with opinions you don’t like is also a very effective way of ‘influencing’ society, as dictators, despots and enemies of free speech throughout history have discovered.

A new law set to be passed in Poland would fine social media companies $2.2 million a pop for censoring lawful free speech.

While numerous western countries are seeking to impose heavy fines on the likes of Facebook and Twitter for failing to remove “hateful” content, Poland is taking a very different approach.

“Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law,” reports Poland In.

“In the event of removal or blockage, a complaint can be sent to the platform, which will have 24 hours to consider it. Within 48 hours of the decision, the user will be able to file a petition to the court for the return of access. The court will consider complaints within seven days of receipt and the entire process is to be electronic.”

Polish Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro made clear that the legal initiative was designed to tackle censorship and that it wouldn’t impact the right of people who have been slandered or defamed to pursue justice.

“Often, the victims of tendencies for ideological censorship are also representatives of various groups operating in Poland, whose content is removed or blocked, just because they express views and refer to values that are unacceptable from the point of view of communities… with an ever-stronger influence on the functioning of social media,” said Ziobro.

“We realise that it is not an easy topic, we realise that on the internet there should also be a sphere of guarantees for everybody who feels slandered, a sphere of limitation of various content which may carry with it a negative impact on the sphere of other people’s freedom.”

“But we would like to propose such tools that will enable both one side and the other to call for the decision of a body that will be able to adjudicate whether content appearing on such and such a social media account really violates personal rights, whether it can be eliminated, or whether there is censorship.”

This should be the model for all developed countries that value free speech.

In reality, the opposite is true, with the UK for example set to introduce an “Online Safety Bill” that threatens social media platforms with fines up to $24 million for failing “to protect users or remove harmful content.”

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

ALERT!

New limited edition merch now available! Click here.

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

———————————————————————————————————————

A study by leading education focused think tank Civitas has found that free speech at the world’s leading universities is being eroded at an alarming rate owing to the rise of “cancel culture”.

The study found that within the past three years, more than 68 per cent of universities in the UK have seen free speech severely restricted, with academics unable to meaningfully discuss the nuances of issues such as race and gender.

The report notes that universities including Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews, three of the world’s premiere institutions are among those that have fallen into a “red” category for free speech following instances of “no platforming” of scheduled speakers.

The study warns that the situation has gotten so severe that it requires government legislation to stop campus censorship at 48 universities, the equivalent of at least 35 per cent of institutions.

Civitas noted that a further 70 institutions, over half, placed into a “amber category”, have experienced restrictions on freedom of expression that should be looked into by university watchdog The Office for Students.

Researchers noted that freedom of speech “could be curbed by perceived transphobic episodes” in an alarming number of institutions, and that a “cancel culture” of open letters and or petitions from “external pressure groups” is eroding free speech.

Lead researcher Jim McConalogue noted “Our findings suggest that 86 per cent of universities faced either severe or moderate free speech restrictions which need to be addressed.”

“The fundamental issue must be dealt with because students and academics find themselves in educational institutions in which they cannot speak freely of the leading subjects of their day including on race, gender, the outcomes of elections, their views on religion, or on discrimination itself for fear of judgements that lead to eventual penalty or censorship,” McConalogue explained.

A previous Civitas report, published last month, found that “The racialisation of campus relations is driving a wedge between students and undermines any sense of our common humanity”.

The report also noted that there is no statistical evidence that ‘ethnicity’ determines the educational attainment of higher education students:

The latest Civitas study was undertaken before another prominent incident at Cambridge University, with dons rejecting ‘authoritarian guidelines’ from the university that decreed opinions should be “respectful of the diverse identities of others”.

Academics instead said they will promote ‘tolerance’ of differing opinions, and are backing amendments to make it more difficult for public speakers to be ‘no-platformed’ based on their beliefs and opinions.

In one particular incident, some students at Clare College, Cambridge, attempted to get a city councillor (who is also a porter at the college) fired for refusing to support a pro-trans motion.

The decimation of free speech at universities has become so severe that the Education Secretary Gavin Williamson announced earlier this year that stamping out ‘no platforming’ was a top priority.

Williamson has warned that legislation for new laws against censorship will have to be introduced if the trend continues.