O wow, the traditional media outfits lying again! What a surprise! Second article in 1 week. With different focus. I keep saying we need to discuss regulating the media. At the very least distributing the ownership so not a single group of wealthy people dictate what is going to be written. For the ones that will inevitably throw the censorship argument don't, I already 100% agree that this needs to be taken very seriously giving the govt no room to exert control over the media. We just need to ensure 0,1% control a big chunk of the "trusted" sources. And we know it's not only a matter of producing alternative content on independent outfits.
In this fight between 2 obnoxious companies I'm cheering for the fight itself. Hope they go down a path of guaranteed mutual destruction. Face recognition is riddled with problems from bad match ratios to downright database racism. There are too many fundamental flaws to deal with before implementing it anywhere. And Jesus, ppl are implementing this shit everywhere without any safeguards.
Well, at the very least we are discussing about it. Do you think that letting this shit go uncontested causing all sorts of problems (hundreds of thousands of deaths in case of covid-19 for instance) is fine? I don't. I also agree we need to be very careful with letting the govt run this show alone. But what can we do about it? Are there ways to mitigate it without giving the govt tools for censorship?
One egregious example: vaccines and autism. Someone suggesting this outside of a scientific article with proper evidence and methodology is spreading misinformation plain and simple. There's no space for doubt here and if some news outfit is reporting on it and not mentioning the articles linking vaccines and autism have been debunked thoroughly by the scientific community then they are open for enforcement. I do agree that the crucial point is not letting a single entity run this show, it must be a combination of various parties. But again it is just one rough idea. My point is: we should be discussing it given the damage this misinformation cause.
It's not about regulating the output itself and it's not necessarily the government having the final say on it. At least not only the govt. It's about being able to make the ones producing false content accountable. Specially if it goes viral.
We could use a "losers pay" so anybody could challenge DMCA requests in equal footing with the studios? I do agree that you need to be careful. As I said in another raply you could create a regulatory body or a committee composed of several players, from govt to citizens, to address those issues. It's an idea. That's my point. The status quo is clearly harmful so why don't we start discussing ways to improve it?
It's not about who should control the press and there shouldn't be exemptions in my point of view. But we can think about a regulatory body consisted by members of the press, the govt, citizens, scientists etc that analyzes such cases? Distribute that power so no single entity has the complete control? That's one idea that came to my mind while pondering on this issue. Is it feasible? Would it be enough to mitigate censorship possibilities? How would you choose the members of such body to make it as diverse as possible, via vote? See where I'm going?
I think that at the very least the most egregious examples can be dealt with like this. I mean, anti-vax material based on refuted academic articles? Boom, have a fine. There are things that are scientific consensus like vaccines. Even covid vaccines already have a wealth of data showing they work wonders with very little collateral effects, we shouldn't be tolerating some garbage I keep seeing circulating out there anymore.
I honestly don't think it works this way for everybody. Local outfits have less money and less influence so it could be true but let's say Fox News. Decades of lies and it's going strong and well. No punishment whatsoever. Same here with big media outfits. Sure a lot of people are waking up for this but it's just a matter of the old foxes putting their money behind the new media outlets that are born smelling of old, decrepit, rotten. Rinse and repeat.
Your comment summarizes the way I feel as well. What I think we should do though is to lean over the subject and try to find ways to punish this kind of speech while avoiding the "power to the Tories" part. Ignoring the problems is not a good solution as Brexit has shown us. I'm not arrogant to say what must or must not be done and I'm fully aware that regulations on this front can become censorship tools. That's why we need many heads working on this.
You are right. But there are consequences for some types of speech. You can't spew death threats and call it a day, you will answer for that. You can't accuse somebody of something without evidence to back up your claims or you'll have to answer for your speech. That's what I mean. Your reply is perfect, I agree 100%. So I'll go back to my original post. What are the consequences of the speech? How can the ones responsible for this speech be held accountable to dissuade them from lying or distorting again while avoiding giving censorship tools to authoritarian pricks? Do we wait until anti-vax bs cause large, deadly pandemics that could be avoided? Do we wait right-wing hate speech cause deaths and lead to Capitol invasions? And when that happens because their speech have no consequence do we wait the next pandemic/capitol invasion? I don't know what the solution is but I do think we need to talk about it and pursue viable solutions.
You see, it is a very, very, VERY delicate and complex issue
That's why I said it's a complex issue. As Mike has already said, you can't prevent someone from yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater where there's no fire, cause panic and injuries and expect not to face the consequences for this. That's why we need to start having a serious debate about it.
It is obviously a very sensitive issue but I'd argue we need media regulation. I mean, a huge outfit like NYT flat out lies (I'm not going to mention Fox because it's like mentioning water is wet) or distorts data and nothing happens. No punishment, no real consequence. So they can keep doing it and in the process undermine the very democracy they depend on to exist. I'm not sure how regulations could be enacted without leaving openings to abuse but we should start discussing this to come with feasible ways.
I don't particularly like the way the Chinese government runs things but I have some stuff I keep wondering. The control they exert over communications has been successful in preventing a lot of what is happening in the western world concerning conspiracy theories and fake news (replacing with govt sanctioned fakes but alas it is a success in tackling the fakes they don't like). They also closed an attack vector that eroded and ultimately killed democracies around the world. Brazil is a very recent and good example of what this external influence can cause. We know now thanks to good journalists and whistleblowers that the US govt was directly involved with the infamous "car wash" operation that led to the illegal arrest of Lula and there is a lot of US money in Brazilian media players that keep touting corrupt judges from the operation as national heroes. We also have the coup in Bolivia that exiled Evo Morales and caused violence against left wing politicians (and those deplorable scenes of a leftist elected politician being harassed and suffering violence in plain sight). The woman leading this absurd in Bolivia is in prison and there is ample evidence of external influence with heavy misinformation campaigns. Not to mention famous bloggers, youtubers, big media outfits and the likes that were caught getting such support to spread lies and help erode local democracies. You see, I'm not saying the Chinese are right but I am questioning how can a nation protect its own sovereignty, autonomy in face of this information warfare? Note that it seems to affect mostly countries governed by the left (reminding you that there is no representative left in the US, Sanders is the closest thing you have to left and he was boycotted by the Democrats) turning into right or far right govts. The places that successfully evade these attacks almost always use authoritarian measures and the ones that fell prey end up ruled by authoritarian right-wing regimes. How do you make it in a democratic way?
I'd go further and add that copyright should be automatically void if there is no available means to buy and/or use the product (ie: games that need specific consoles that aren't manufactured anymore). Plenty of stuff out there with infinite copyrights, meaning I'll be dead before copyright expires, and you can't find for sale anywhere.
"When customers don't bother to hand enough money to vendors, the vendors will not bother making DRM work properly" - Fair enough, then I simply don't give them money and just pirate it. Or rather, as I have been doing for some years now, simply ignore the company releases altogether.
On the post: YouTuber Has 150 Anime Reviews And 'Let's Draws' Hit With Copyright Claims All At Once
Re:
Call them MAFIAA, it's more fitting to their tactics.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Mainstream Media Is A Key Vector In Spreading Misinformation
O wow, the traditional media outfits lying again! What a surprise! Second article in 1 week. With different focus. I keep saying we need to discuss regulating the media. At the very least distributing the ownership so not a single group of wealthy people dictate what is going to be written. For the ones that will inevitably throw the censorship argument don't, I already 100% agree that this needs to be taken very seriously giving the govt no room to exert control over the media. We just need to ensure 0,1% control a big chunk of the "trusted" sources. And we know it's not only a matter of producing alternative content on independent outfits.
On the post: FCC Gets Its First Permanent Female FCC Boss Ever
Ah the media being used to mislead people. Again.
On the post: Controversial Facial Recognition Company Calls Out Clearview, Demands It Ditch Its Database Of 10 Billion Scraped Images
In this fight between 2 obnoxious companies I'm cheering for the fight itself. Hope they go down a path of guaranteed mutual destruction. Face recognition is riddled with problems from bad match ratios to downright database racism. There are too many fundamental flaws to deal with before implementing it anywhere. And Jesus, ppl are implementing this shit everywhere without any safeguards.
On the post: Apple Notifies More Victims Of NSO Malware Hacking Attempts
I'm about to actually praise Apple for the first time in a long while.
Kudos for taking a stand.
I wonder if we'll see Americans targeted by some US govt body.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, at the very least we are discussing about it. Do you think that letting this shit go uncontested causing all sorts of problems (hundreds of thousands of deaths in case of covid-19 for instance) is fine? I don't. I also agree we need to be very careful with letting the govt run this show alone. But what can we do about it? Are there ways to mitigate it without giving the govt tools for censorship?
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re: Re: consequences needed
One egregious example: vaccines and autism. Someone suggesting this outside of a scientific article with proper evidence and methodology is spreading misinformation plain and simple. There's no space for doubt here and if some news outfit is reporting on it and not mentioning the articles linking vaccines and autism have been debunked thoroughly by the scientific community then they are open for enforcement. I do agree that the crucial point is not letting a single entity run this show, it must be a combination of various parties. But again it is just one rough idea. My point is: we should be discussing it given the damage this misinformation cause.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not about regulating the output itself and it's not necessarily the government having the final say on it. At least not only the govt. It's about being able to make the ones producing false content accountable. Specially if it goes viral.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We could use a "losers pay" so anybody could challenge DMCA requests in equal footing with the studios? I do agree that you need to be careful. As I said in another raply you could create a regulatory body or a committee composed of several players, from govt to citizens, to address those issues. It's an idea. That's my point. The status quo is clearly harmful so why don't we start discussing ways to improve it?
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not about who should control the press and there shouldn't be exemptions in my point of view. But we can think about a regulatory body consisted by members of the press, the govt, citizens, scientists etc that analyzes such cases? Distribute that power so no single entity has the complete control? That's one idea that came to my mind while pondering on this issue. Is it feasible? Would it be enough to mitigate censorship possibilities? How would you choose the members of such body to make it as diverse as possible, via vote? See where I'm going?
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: consequences needed
I think that at the very least the most egregious examples can be dealt with like this. I mean, anti-vax material based on refuted academic articles? Boom, have a fine. There are things that are scientific consensus like vaccines. Even covid vaccines already have a wealth of data showing they work wonders with very little collateral effects, we shouldn't be tolerating some garbage I keep seeing circulating out there anymore.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re:
I honestly don't think it works this way for everybody. Local outfits have less money and less influence so it could be true but let's say Fox News. Decades of lies and it's going strong and well. No punishment whatsoever. Same here with big media outfits. Sure a lot of people are waking up for this but it's just a matter of the old foxes putting their money behind the new media outlets that are born smelling of old, decrepit, rotten. Rinse and repeat.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re:
Your comment summarizes the way I feel as well. What I think we should do though is to lean over the subject and try to find ways to punish this kind of speech while avoiding the "power to the Tories" part. Ignoring the problems is not a good solution as Brexit has shown us. I'm not arrogant to say what must or must not be done and I'm fully aware that regulations on this front can become censorship tools. That's why we need many heads working on this.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are right. But there are consequences for some types of speech. You can't spew death threats and call it a day, you will answer for that. You can't accuse somebody of something without evidence to back up your claims or you'll have to answer for your speech. That's what I mean. Your reply is perfect, I agree 100%. So I'll go back to my original post. What are the consequences of the speech? How can the ones responsible for this speech be held accountable to dissuade them from lying or distorting again while avoiding giving censorship tools to authoritarian pricks? Do we wait until anti-vax bs cause large, deadly pandemics that could be avoided? Do we wait right-wing hate speech cause deaths and lead to Capitol invasions? And when that happens because their speech have no consequence do we wait the next pandemic/capitol invasion? I don't know what the solution is but I do think we need to talk about it and pursue viable solutions.
You see, it is a very, very, VERY delicate and complex issue
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re:
That's why I said it's a complex issue. As Mike has already said, you can't prevent someone from yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater where there's no fire, cause panic and injuries and expect not to face the consequences for this. That's why we need to start having a serious debate about it.
On the post: Public Fallout Over Take-Two Playing IP Troll Begins
I'm voting with my wallet. It's been ages since I bought anything from them.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
It is obviously a very sensitive issue but I'd argue we need media regulation. I mean, a huge outfit like NYT flat out lies (I'm not going to mention Fox because it's like mentioning water is wet) or distorts data and nothing happens. No punishment, no real consequence. So they can keep doing it and in the process undermine the very democracy they depend on to exist. I'm not sure how regulations could be enacted without leaving openings to abuse but we should start discussing this to come with feasible ways.
On the post: Chinese Government Is Building A Surveillance System That Will Target, Track Foreign Journalists, Students
I don't particularly like the way the Chinese government runs things but I have some stuff I keep wondering. The control they exert over communications has been successful in preventing a lot of what is happening in the western world concerning conspiracy theories and fake news (replacing with govt sanctioned fakes but alas it is a success in tackling the fakes they don't like). They also closed an attack vector that eroded and ultimately killed democracies around the world. Brazil is a very recent and good example of what this external influence can cause. We know now thanks to good journalists and whistleblowers that the US govt was directly involved with the infamous "car wash" operation that led to the illegal arrest of Lula and there is a lot of US money in Brazilian media players that keep touting corrupt judges from the operation as national heroes. We also have the coup in Bolivia that exiled Evo Morales and caused violence against left wing politicians (and those deplorable scenes of a leftist elected politician being harassed and suffering violence in plain sight). The woman leading this absurd in Bolivia is in prison and there is ample evidence of external influence with heavy misinformation campaigns. Not to mention famous bloggers, youtubers, big media outfits and the likes that were caught getting such support to spread lies and help erode local democracies. You see, I'm not saying the Chinese are right but I am questioning how can a nation protect its own sovereignty, autonomy in face of this information warfare? Note that it seems to affect mostly countries governed by the left (reminding you that there is no representative left in the US, Sanders is the closest thing you have to left and he was boycotted by the Democrats) turning into right or far right govts. The places that successfully evade these attacks almost always use authoritarian measures and the ones that fell prey end up ruled by authoritarian right-wing regimes. How do you make it in a democratic way?
On the post: It's Time To End The Anti-Circumvention Exemption Circus
I'd go further and add that copyright should be automatically void if there is no available means to buy and/or use the product (ie: games that need specific consoles that aren't manufactured anymore). Plenty of stuff out there with infinite copyrights, meaning I'll be dead before copyright expires, and you can't find for sale anywhere.
On the post: Denuvo Games Once Again Broken For Paying Customers Thanks To DRM Mishap
Re: The game customers didn't pay enough...
"When customers don't bother to hand enough money to vendors, the vendors will not bother making DRM work properly" - Fair enough, then I simply don't give them money and just pirate it. Or rather, as I have been doing for some years now, simply ignore the company releases altogether.
Next >>