|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Stanford Wedge project
Portola Valley has a long tradition of NIMBY regarding affordable housing. Rusty Day maintains that tradition in spades as he goes on about the “jeopardy” of building 27 homes on a parcel of land along Alpine Road near Westridge Drive (“‘A very dangerous place for fire’ in Portola Valley,” Jan. 22).
He ignores the realities:
1. As reported widely, “the project would consist of 27 single-family homes for faculty and three apartment buildings with 12 low-income apartments. The buildings would be on 7.4 acres of the 75 acres that make up the wedge.” This plan does not build in the ravines.
2. 27 single-family homes on 7 acres is actually a density similar to Ladera, a development that is more fire safe than Portola Valley. When PG&E imposes power outages, the town has suffered; whereas, Ladera has not had the power cut yet by PG&E for wildfire safety.
3. Poor maintenance of landscape and lack of natural fire is a systemic problem in Portola Valley and much of the rest of California. This risk is not seen in higher housing densities around the area, so this extends to much higher density housing than proposed.
Thus, the plan more likely reduces overall fire risk for your town.
Ed Mocarski
Retired Stanford University professor emeritus
Erica Way, Ladera
The doomsday machine next door
The images of a mob of domestic terrorists invading Congress will long be imprinted in our minds as one of the most devastating attacks on our democracy. Unfortunately, the events of Jan. 6 were not unexpected. The amplification, and viral spread, of the lies and conspiracy theories by social media have polarized this nation to such a dangerous degree that they may well continue injuring our democracy beyond repair. No society can function unless there is enough shared basis of factual reality.
Social media, and Facebook in particular, have prioritized profit far above the sustainability of the country that has incubated them. Their algorithms are designed to maximize attention, and they well know that polarizing content and rage maximize engagement. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that fake news has a six-time advantage over real stories. How convenient, then, that Facebook has continued to resist suppressing dangerous misinformation. Their platform’s media have created and empowered a consequential population of conspiracy theorists, including groups the FBI has determined to pose a domestic terror threat. Even though they have 15,000 people moderating the most egregious content like child pornography, their leadership has not done nearly enough to remove dangerous lies and disinformation.
Immediately after the election on Nov. 3, Facebook tweaked its algorithm to prioritize media based on factual verifiable reporting, but they did not continue after the election as they surely came to the conclusion that it would affect their bottom line. They know how to fix the vile spread of lies and conspiracy theories, but they will not take responsibility. We, their neighbors in Menlo Park, should not be passive or blind to the fact they we live next door to a doomsday machine. At the very least we should start a serious dialogue on what we can do to stop the virus of harmful conspiracy theories and state-sponsored disinformation purposefully designed to exacerbate the fault lines in our society.
Facebook and other social media platforms have all been complicit in excess pandemic deaths and in the events leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of our nation’s Capitol. It is long past time for them to take responsibility for spreading hate and lies.
Mark Tuschman
Santa Monica Avenue, Menlo Park
I prefer to support free speech. Tumi Free Speech includes things that I do not agree with and in some cases and completely opposed to. However as the Supreme Court has ruled even hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Facebook is a platform they do not make the post themselves. Asking them to sensor what people have to say is not right and needs to be avoided at all cost. To paraphrase Voltaire “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life for your right to say it.”
Sorry for the typo’s above. I tried sending it from my phone.
Brian:
the first amendment does not apply to private enterprise, only the government. Private entities are free to censor whatever they want.
Menlo Voter,
Yes I am well aware of that but the First Amendment is the embodiment of a belief that is pervasive throughout the history of the United States of America. Private companies should not make it a point to stifle freedom of speech or expression just because some people do not like what is being said. In my opinion it is short sighted and small minded to want to stifle opposing points of view. Look at recent US History, speaking out for a woman’s right to vote would have been very unpopular 110 years ago. Speaking out for civil rights would not have been popular, especially in southern states, 70 years ago, the same goes for LGBTQ rights as recently as 30 years ago. I would hope that today we can agree that the people who spoke for those rights were correct and applaud what they did. I would rather see Facebook respect and allow all opinions and speech, with certain exceptions, than have them censor anything. I don’t agree with a lot os what is said on Facebook but I do respect that the people saying it should be allowed to. I can use my own mind to believe it or not. I think Facebook has made the correct move by labeling posts that contain information that has been proven false. Let people decide from there.
Exceptions being to the First Amendment, per the Supreme Court, being obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Saying the vote was stolen, or claiming the earth is flat does not violate those exceptions. trying to rally people to commit violence does.
Brian:
The point is that people are still free to say all of the things you say they should be able to say. You just can force a business to allow those things to be said “in” their business. Should someone be allowed to come into a coffee shop and start shouting at the top of their lungs about whatever they want to? I don’t think so and I don’t think you do either. Facebook, etc are businesses and shouldn’t be forced to allow any speech they don’t want to allow. By not allowing it they are not stifling free speech. Those people are still free to say whatever they want, just not on Facebook.
I wonder if the solution to the Facebook free-speech / viral misinformation problem can be solved by treating them either as a communications utility – such as a phone network – or a publisher – depending on the nature of the communication. Basically, for direct communication between people – they should provide a service similar to the phone service: they would not be liable for what is said between individuals – but they also do not censor. But – as the audience for a message increases – someone needs to be progressively more liable, with appropriate discretion to block those messages – not unlike a publisher or broadcaster is liable for the information they spread. It would tricky to define exactly what communications they should treat like a phone or postal service, and which they would treated like a publisher – but I believe the problem should be thought of in these terms. If Facebook isn’t assigned liability for widely broadcast information, the government should force Facebook to identify who has liability before it gets broadcast. That would be their job: to clearly identify who (meaning: physical people) has liability for widely broadcast information. Failure to do so would mean Facebook has liability.
Menlo Voter,
Maybe I am wrong but it seems we are getting mixed up. The article is an opinion piece that argues that Facebook should restrict free speech and censor people’s posts if they contain information that people (one group or another) do not approve of or feel it is wrong. My point is that Facebook should not be forced to do this and should make their own decisions about content. I like the fact that they are allowing opposing point of view and allowing people to have their say. I would say to Mark Tuschman the same thing I said to some of my far right friends. If you don’t like the way Facebook is handling their platform there are other options. Several people I know moved to Parlor because they did not like the Facebook “Censorship” and that was their choice.
Alan,
Instead of holding Facebook accountable for information on their site, which is nearly impossible to control given the volume of posts every minute, how about holding the poster accountable? Look at some of the comments that have been posted on this site, there have been some pretty heinous and vitriolic comments here. They were eventually moderated off the site but not immediately and this site is a fraction of a faction of a fraction of the volumn Facebook gets. Should we shutdown all comments on the Almanac site? Maybe hold them liable for what some angry person posts? Better yet, why don’t we just ignore it and move on…?