Newsgroup: it.comp.giochi.action
Titolo: Il discorso di Cohen

Ecco la trascrizione completa che vi invito a leggere:
 
Thank you, ADL, for this recognition and your work in fighting racism, 
hate and bigotry. And to be clear, when I say “racism, hate and 
bigotry” I’m not referring to the names of Stephen Miller’s 
Labradoodles.
 
Now, I realize that some of you may be thinking, what the hell is a 
comedian doing speaking at a conference like this! I certainly am. I’ve 
spent most of the past two decades in character. In fact, this is the 
first time that I have ever stood up and given a speech as my least 
popular character, Sacha Baron Cohen. And I have to confess, it is 
terrifying.
 
I realize that my presence here may also be unexpected for another 
reason. At times, some critics have said my comedy risks reinforcing 
old stereotypes.
 
The truth is, I’ve been passionate about challenging bigotry and 
intolerance throughout my life. As a teenager in the UK, I marched 
against the fascist National Front and to abolish apartheid. As an 
undergraduate, I traveled around America and wrote my thesis about the 
civil rights movement, with the help of the archives of the ADL. And as 
a comedian, I’ve tried to use my characters to get people to let down 
their guard and reveal what they actually believe, including their own 
prejudice.
 
Now, I’m not going to claim that everything I’ve done has been for a 
higher purpose. Yes, some of my comedy, OK probably half my comedy, has 
been absolutely juvenile and the other half completely puerile. I 
admit, there was nothing particularly enlightening about me – as Borat 
from Kazakhstan, the first fake news journalist – running through a 
conference of mortgage brokers when I was completely naked.
 
But when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing “Throw 
the Jew down the well,” it did reveal people’s indifference to 
antisemitism. When – as Bruno, the gay fashion reporter from Austria – 
I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas, nearly starting a 
riot, it showed the violent potential of homophobia. And when – 
disguised as an ultra-woke developer – I proposed building a mosque in 
one rural community, prompting a resident to proudly admit, “I am 
racist, against Muslims” – it showed the acceptance of Islamophobia.
 
That’s why I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you. Today 
around the world, demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy 
theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It’s as if 
the Age of Reason – the era of evidential argument – is ending, and now 
knowledge is delegitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. 
Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and 
autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes 
are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic 
minorities.
 
What do all these dangerous trends have in common? I’m just a comedian 
and an actor, not a scholar. But one thing is pretty clear to me. All 
this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet 
companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.
 
The greatest propaganda machine in history.
 
Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others – they 
reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on 
deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – 
stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and 
fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex 
Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, 
because studies show that lies spread faster than truth. And it’s no 
surprise that the greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the 
oldest conspiracy theory in history – the lie that Jews are somehow 
dangerous. As one headline put it, “Just Think What Goebbels Could Have 
Done with Facebook.”
 
On the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart 
resembles the BBC. The fictitious Protocols of the Elders of Zion look 
as valid as an ADL report. And the rantings of a lunatic seem as 
credible as the findings of a Nobel prize winner. We have lost, it 
seems, a shared sense of the basic facts upon which democracy depends.
 
When I, as the wannabe gangsta Ali G, asked the astronaut Buzz Aldrin 
“what woz it like to walk on de sun?” the joke worked, because we, the 
audience, shared the same facts. If you believe the moon landing was a 
hoax, the joke was not funny.
 
When Borat got that bar in Arizona to agree that “Jews control 
everybody’s money and never give it back,” the joke worked because the 
audience shared the fact that the depiction of Jews as miserly is a 
conspiracy theory originating in the Middle Ages.
 
But when, thanks to social media, conspiracies take hold, it’s easier 
for hate groups to recruit, easier for foreign intelligence agencies to 
interfere in our elections, and easier for a country like Myanmar to 
commit genocide against the Rohingya.
 
It’s actually quite shocking how easy it is to turn conspiracy thinking 
into violence. In my last show Who is America?, I found an educated, 
normal guy who had held down a good job, but who, on social media, 
repeated many of the conspiracy theories that President Trump, using 
Twitter, has spread more than 1,700 times to his 67 million followers. 
The president even tweeted that he was considering designating Antifa – 
anti-fascists who march against the far right – as a terror 
organization.
 
So, disguised as an Israel anti-terrorism expert, Colonel Erran Morad, 
I told my interviewee that, at the Women’s March in San Francisco, 
Antifa were plotting to put hormones into babies’ diapers in order to 
“make them transgender”. And he believed it.
 
I instructed him to plant small devices on three innocent people at the 
march and explained that when he pushed a button, he’d trigger an 
explosion that would kill them all. They weren’t real explosives, of 
course, but he thought they were. I wanted to see – would he actually 
do it?
 
The answer was yes. He pushed the button and thought he had actually 
killed three human beings. Voltaire was right: “Those who can make you 
believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” And social media 
lets authoritarians push absurdities to billions of people.
 
In their defense, these social media companies have taken some steps to 
reduce hate and conspiracies on their platforms, but these steps have 
been mostly superficial.
 
I’m speaking up today because I believe that our pluralistic 
democracies are on a precipice and that the next 12 months, and the 
role of social media, could be determinant. British voters will go to 
the polls while online conspiracists promote the despicable theory of 
“great replacement” that white Christians are being deliberately 
replaced by Muslim immigrants. Americans will vote for president while 
trolls and bots perpetuate the disgusting lie of a “Hispanic invasion”. 
And after years of YouTube videos calling climate change a “hoax”, the 
United States is on track, a year from now, to formally withdraw from 
the Paris accords. A sewer of bigotry and vile conspiracy theories that 
threatens democracy and our planet – this cannot possibly be what the 
creators of the internet had in mind.
 
I believe it’s time for a fundamental rethink of social media and how 
it spreads hate, conspiracies and lies. Last month, however, Mark 
Zuckerberg of Facebook delivered a major speech that, not surprisingly, 
warned against new laws and regulations on companies like his. Well, 
some of these arguments are simply absurd. Let’s count the ways.
 
First, Zuckerberg tried to portray this whole issue as “choices … 
around free expression”. That is ludicrous. This is not about limiting 
anyone’s free speech. This is about giving people, including some of 
the most reprehensible people on earth, the biggest platform in history 
to reach a third of the planet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of 
reach. Sadly, there will always be racists, misogynists, antisemites 
and child abusers. But I think we could all agree that we should not be 
giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and 
target their victims.
 
Second, Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what’s posted on social 
media would be to “pull back on free expression”. This is utter 
nonsense. The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” 
abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private 
businesses like Facebook. We’re not asking these companies to determine 
the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be 
responsible on their platforms.
 
If a neo-Nazi comes goose-stepping into a restaurant and starts 
threatening other customers and saying he wants kill Jews, would the 
owner of the restaurant be required to serve him an elegant 
eight-course meal? Of course not! The restaurant owner has every legal 
right and a moral obligation to kick the Nazi out, and so do these 
internet companies.
 
Third, Zuckerberg seemed to equate regulation of companies like his to 
the actions of “the most repressive societies”. Incredible. This, from 
one of the six people who decide what information so much of the world 
sees. Zuckerberg at Facebook, Sundar Pichai at Google, at its parent 
company Alphabet, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Brin’s ex-sister-in-law, 
Susan Wojcicki at YouTube and Jack Dorsey at Twitter.
 
The Silicon Six – all billionaires, all Americans – who care more about 
boosting their share price than about protecting democracy. This is 
ideological imperialism – six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley 
imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any 
government and acting like they’re above the reach of law. It’s like 
we’re living in the Roman Empire, and Mark Zuckerberg is Caesar. At 
least that would explain his haircut.
 
Here’s an idea. Instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of 
the world, let our elected representatives, voted for by the people, of 
every democracy in the world, have at least some say.
 
Fourth, Zuckerberg speaks of welcoming a “diversity of ideas”, and last 
year he gave us an example. He said that he found posts denying the 
Holocaust “deeply offensive”, but he didn’t think Facebook should take 
them down “because I think there are things that different people get 
wrong”. At this very moment, there are still Holocaust deniers on 
Facebook, and Google still takes you to the most repulsive Holocaust 
denial sites with a simple click. One of the heads of Google once told 
me, incredibly, that these sites just show “both sides” of the issue. 
This is madness.
 
To quote Edward R Murrow, one “cannot accept that there are, on every 
story, two equal and logical sides to an argument”. We have millions of 
pieces of evidence for the Holocaust – it is an historical fact. And 
denying it is not some random opinion. Those who deny the Holocaust aim 
to encourage another one.
 
Still, Zuckerberg says that “people should decide what is credible, not 
tech companies.” But at a time when two-thirds of millennials say they 
haven’t even heard of Auschwitz, how are they supposed to know what’s 
“credible”? How are they supposed to know that the lie is a lie?
 
There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. And if these 
internet companies really want to make a difference, they should hire 
enough monitors to actually monitor, work closely with groups like the 
ADL, insist on facts and purge these lies and conspiracies from their 
platforms.
 
Fifth, when discussing the difficulty of removing content, Zuckerberg 
asked “where do you draw the line?” Yes, drawing the line can be 
difficult. But here’s what he’s really saying: removing more of these 
lies and conspiracies is just too expensive.
 
These are the richest companies in the world, and they have the best 
engineers in the world. They could fix these problems if they wanted 
to. Twitter could deploy an algorithm to remove more white supremacist 
hate speech, but they reportedly haven’t because it would eject some 
very prominent politicians from their platform. Maybe that’s not a bad 
thing! The truth is, these companies won’t fundamentally change because 
their entire business model relies on generating more engagement, and 
nothing generates more engagement than lies, fear and outrage.
 
It’s time to finally call these companies what they really are – the 
largest publishers in history. And here’s an idea for them: abide by 
basic standards and practices just like newspapers, magazines and TV 
news do every day. We have standards and practices in television and 
the movies; there are certain things we cannot say or do. In England, I 
was told that Ali G could not curse when he appeared before 9pm. Here 
in the US, the Motion Picture Association of America regulates and 
rates what we see. I’ve had scenes in my movies cut or reduced to abide 
by those standards. If there are standards and practices for what 
cinemas and television channels can show, then surely companies that 
publish material to billions of people should have to abide by basic 
standards and practices too.
 
Take the issue of political ads. Fortunately, Twitter finally banned 
them, and Google is making changes, too. But if you pay them, Facebook 
will run any “political” ad you want, even if it’s a lie. And they’ll 
even help you micro-target those lies to their users for maximum 
effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, 
it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his “solution” to 
the “Jewish problem”. So here’s a good standard and practice: Facebook, 
start factchecking political ads before you run them, stop 
micro-targeted lies immediately, and when the ads are false, give back 
the money and don’t publish them.
 
Here’s another good practice: slow down. Every single post doesn’t need 
to be published immediately. Oscar Wilde once said that “we live in an 
age when unnecessary things are our only necessities.” But is having 
every thought or video posted instantly online, even if it is racist or 
criminal or murderous, really a necessity? Of course not!
 
The shooter who massacred Muslims in New Zealand live-streamed his 
atrocity on Facebook where it then spread across the internet and was 
viewed likely millions of times. It was a snuff film, brought to you by 
social media. Why can’t we have more of a delay so this trauma-inducing 
filth can be caught and stopped before it’s posted in the first place?
 
Finally, Zuckerberg said that social media companies should “live up to 
their responsibilities”, but he’s totally silent about what should 
happen when they don’t. By now it’s pretty clear, they cannot be 
trusted to regulate themselves. As with the Industrial Revolution, it’s 
time for regulation and legislation to curb the greed of these hi-tech 
robber barons.
 
In every other industry, a company can be held liable when their 
product is defective. When engines explode or seatbelts malfunction, 
car companies recall tens of thousands of vehicles, at a cost of 
billions of dollars. It only seems fair to say to Facebook, YouTube and 
Twitter: your product is defective, you are obliged to fix it, no 
matter how much it costs and no matter how many moderators you need to 
employ.
 
In every other industry, you can be sued for the harm you cause. 
Publishers can be sued for libel, people can be sued for defamation. 
I’ve been sued many times! I’m being sued right now by someone whose 
name I won’t mention because he might sue me again! But social media 
companies are largely protected from liability for the content their 
users post – no matter how indecent it is – by Section 230 of, get 
ready for it, the Communications Decency Act. Absurd!
 
Fortunately, internet companies can now be held responsible for 
pedophiles who use their sites to target children. I say, let’s also 
hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to 
advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or 
religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time to tell Mark 
Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: you already allowed one 
foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated 
one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail.
 
In the end, it all comes down to what kind of world we want. In his 
speech, Zuckerberg said that one of his main goals is to “uphold as 
wide a definition of freedom of expression as possible”. Yet our 
freedoms are not only an end in themselves, they’re also the means to 
another end – as you say here in the US, the right to life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness. But today these rights are threatened by 
hate, conspiracies and lies.
 
Allow me to leave you with a suggestion for a different aim for 
society. The ultimate aim of society should be to make sure that people 
are not targeted, not harassed and not murdered because of who they 
are, where they come from, who they love or how they pray.
 
If we make that our aim – if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance 
over prejudice, empathy over indifference and experts over ignoramuses 
– then maybe, just maybe, we can stop the greatest propaganda machine 
in history, we can save democracy, we can still have a place for free 
speech and free expression, and, most importantly, my jokes will still 
work.
 
Thank you all very much.
 
-- 
Papa Francesco: "Dio arriva gratis". Ma solo se hai Prime.


A’ faccia d’o cazz!
 
R

 generates more engagement than lies, fear and outrage.
 
Esatto, quindi è unproblema che non può essere risolto dalle compagnie, 
per la vecchia storia dell'oste e del vino. Hate speech e fake news, più 
la vendita dei dati personali alle aziende, sono il fulcro del loro 
modello di business. Servirebbe una forma di coercizione anche lì. Però 
poi EH L'ART.21, EH LA LIBERTA' DI ESPRESSIONE

 EH LA LIBERTA' DI ESPRESSIONE
 
La libertà di espressione la eserciti a casa tua, non in un posto che 
ha algoritmi per metterti in comunicazione con più gente possibile che 
condivide le tue cazzate.
 
Perchè il prodotto è questo:
https://www.huffingtonpost.it/entry/assalto-congresso-intervista-alec-ross_it_5ff74c03c5b6c0ae2e7357ab
 
 
-- 
Insomma se Di Maio restava ancora un po' al San Paolo rischiava di far 
fallire la Coca-Cola.


LOL, guarda che quello che dice è l'unica cosa sensata che ho sentito 
dire sull'argomento, da sempre.
Non so se esiste una versione tradotta.
 
-- 
Il Papa guarda la neve dalla finestra. Poi uscirà a fare il pupazzo.

 
https://www.huffingtonpost.it/entry/assalto-congresso-intervista-alec-ross_it_5ff74c03c5b6c0ae2e7357ab
 
 
Il fuckington post di solito mi fa abbastanza ridere, ma l'articolo è 
condivisibile. Il punto che non condivido però riguarda la conclusione 
per la quale Trump - che ai miei occhi non è altro che un Berlusconi 
leggermente potenziato, quindi un cretino a briglia sciolta - punterebbe 
alla guerra civile. Quello mi sembra più un risultato dovuto alle 
singole e ridicole politiche locali, ne abbiamo parlato qui dopo gli 
ultimi episodi di BLM.
 
Credo invece che la faccenda, essendo appunto Trump l'imperatore dei 
cretini, gli sia sfuggita di mano. Ha sbraitato una volta di troppo e 
gli è scoppiata la miccia in mano. Ennesima dimostrazione che i social 
sono uno strumento molto pericoloso, specie se dato in mano a un bambino 
che detiene il potere.
 

 Come avviene coi giornali, con la TV, coi siti web, ecc.
 
I social americani vanno banditi dalla EU in modo coatto, c'è poco da 
girarci intorno. 
-- 
Soprano

 molto pericoloso, specie se dato in mano a un bambino che detiene il potere.
 
Sul fatto che Trump sia un cretino ho molti dubbi. Resta pur sempre un 
miliardario, non uno che mette le patatine fritte da merdonalds. Viene 
da famiglia ricca, ma non così tanto. E' cmq una persona di successo, 
tanto fesso non è.
Sicuramente ha tirato troppo la corda. Ma quanto era voluto e quanto 
no?
 
-- 
Papa Francesco: "Per Dio nessuno è straniero". Sì, però stai calmo.


Sarebbe un sogno ma non accadrà mai.
guarda che casino hanno piantato gli usa quando l'ue voleva introdurre 
una digital tax sui loro colossi del commercio online.
 
-- 
Per Bagnasco “il deterioramento del costume è un male”. I coglioni si 
notano di più.