I like your idea, Urza, but it needs work if it's going to be put into action. I'm thinking of an item you can plug in and switch on as most people -- myself included -- are not technically minded. Forming a community of people running nodes would be problematic as finding such people might not be easy. I wouldn't know where to look among my own neighbours, for example.
If there was a way to collaborate online to locate nearby nodes and connect to them via the kind of portable system I'm thinking of, that would work, but it wold rely on like-minded people living nearby and on having a regular ISP setup as a backup in case that failed. Could it be done? I don't know enough about mesh networking to do anything but imagine and hope.
I'm not sure what the actual fix is, but saying that people would be better off if they curated their exposure to the world isn't necessarily going to be a positive move every time. We're already seeing what happens when people are convinced to shield themselves from opposing viewpoints (Brexit, Trump), and it will get worse if people just shut off anything the disagree with on both sides.
I was taught to argue both sides as a child, I've continued to do so ever since. It helps in debating as I can understand the other side's viewpoint even though I disagree with it. As a result of this I follow a wide range of people on Twitter from full-on left wingers to pretty hard right, e.g. David French. This gives me a good balance, IMHO, without including anti-vaxxers, Trump cultists, and assorted freaks. Their crap still comes up in my feed when others retweet it, but it doesn't drown out all the other stuff I'm interested in.
I understand some work is being done in terms of teaching children how to tell the difference between reliable sources and fake news; we need more of that.
As for the actual fix, we need to deal firmly with the social issues that encourage people to act like jerks.
People who want to kill people will find a way to do it, AC.
I agree we shouldn't make it easy for them to do so.
That said, speech is a different thing to guns and should be addressed in a different way. Fun fact: if we did more to address our social problems it'd not only reduce the fake news problem it'd also reduce the gun violence problem.
the issues that make moderation impossible to do well or please any of the people demanding that Facebook be broken up.
While the issues wouldn't be massively alleviated it'd be a start.
Moderation is a different thing and, at scale, is hard to do well. Mike's idea of protocols rather than platforms is a step in that direction.
Sooner or later we're going to have to address the social issues that drive people to bad behaviour; people are the problem here.
We also need to look harder at owing our own online spaces; I block and mute judiciously to keep crap out of my feed. I don't mind people disagreeing with me as it makes for a lively debate— just don't be a jerk about it.
... a few people who think that they the guardians of society making lots of noise until somebody does something to make their problem go away is the real problem, And once they have killed one target, they move onto the next one.
Such people exist; I usually call them "mad proggies" except where they appear on the right wanting to ban sexual content.
That said, moderation is essential to keep discourse moving, otherwise the public space is ceded to the most obnoxious.
It's not easy at all. With users uploading and sharing content over and over again, you'd need at least one moderator per hundred or so to keep on top of it all. No one could afford to do that, so they automate as much as possible. Even if they could afford to have that many moderators the choices they make are subjective and there's a lot of burnout over the horrible crap they have to deal with.
I recently changed jobs; the crap still up about me on ROR made no difference to my boss's hiring choices. In any case, he's smart enough to be able to tell the difference between a troll post on the likes of 4chan and a genuine complaint.
It'd lead to the collapse of the business. Consider this: we have a bunch of resident trolls who whine about having their posts hidden behind grey text. Imagine the cries of "Censorship, by God!" from all the "conservatives," etc., should such a scheme be implemented.
You're asking for the evisceration of the First Amendment. No.
No, he wants it held for moderation and approved before being posted. I.E. he's all about censorship and approved speech. This sounds reasonable to people who honestly believe this will only be used to weed out nazis, but as the experience of the people of Poland has shown, it can and would be abused.
Facebook can be broken up by splitting off the functions and other platform properties, e.g. Whatsapp. Then regulate them so they can't use ad tracking against people's will. That should help.
@cpt kangarooski you are at liberty to start your own social media platform and to run it as you please. Assume you do and that it's instantly popular with tons of subscribers and you are now a billionaire.
Trouble enters paradise when the nazis, anti-vaxxers and other numbnuts come along and start spreading all kinds of crap on your platform. It's easy enough to delete their crap and ban them, etc., but you're running into two problems:
the millions of users uploading and sharing multiple posts per person, as many as twenty a day.
the bannination system you're using bans IPs; most of the people affected are actually innocent, they were just in the same catchment area as the guilty parties.
the guilty parties are resorting to TOR, etc., to set up new accounts and post anyway, so you ban TOR.
the guilty parties are using VPNs to post anonymously. Since their IP keeps changing, they keep setting up new accounts. Meanwhile, innocent VPN users are being kicked off the platform.
both the innocent and the guilty are freaking out about you on other platforms and the news media has picked this up.
LOL! The UK is already being pressured by the US on multiple fronts. I remember not too long ago that being forced to accept chlorinated chicken with no labelling to indicate what sort of crap was in it was one of the arguments against Brexit. Every Brexiter then hopped in to tell us that if Americans were happy with it, what's the problem?
Also, it's easier to tack on to an existing trade deal than to negotiate a completely separate one. Seeing Boris's track record, what he'll actually do is "negotiate" a worse FTA than that. His existing Brexit deal is worse than May's; he only got it through by holding a Night of the Long Knives event where he purged dissenters from the party and rammed the Lords with compliant picks.
Those who have had their reputations destroyed because intermediaries spread defamation without accountability deserve better than to have their harm dismissed.
Remember how someone posted lies about me on various platforms, then contacted my employers to try to get me fired from my job?
Who was responsible? The troll.
Could I do anything about it? Yes: post rebuttals and contact the platform with evidence that the troll's "reviews" were false. Most of the platforms took the comments down; the one that left the comment up allowed me to post a rebuttal, so every time Hamilton brings it up, he's linking to the rebuttal as well, which is why nobody ever takes him seriously. Advise my employers it was troll activity
** Get a statement from the police to prove I wasn't being investigated for the crimes the troll had falsely accused me of.
Result: no harm, I was promoted afterwards.
If someone on 4chan defames someone who loses a job because of GOOGLE, then GOOGLE inflicted the harm. It's called "distributor liability." Publication and spreading the lie are two separate harms inflicted by two separate parties.
The defamation is on 4chan. Google is a search engine. These are different things.
Anyone who believes what they read on 4chan needs their head read, stat.
It's 4chan, not Google, that inflicted the harm, should any occur because you're incapable of pointing out and proving to your employers that this is troll activity. I managed it.
Publication is by the troll alone. You need to take up any issues you have with troll posts on 4chan with the site moderators. That is your first port of call.
The lie is being spread by the troll, who, if he really wanted to do you harm, wouldn't just trash talk on 4chan, he'd post it on other platforms too.
Only one party is responsible; the troll. Platforms refusing to remove their posts will at least permit you to post a rebuttal, which you can then use to defend yourself.
Why do you keep flogging the damn horse? It's dead. Leave it. You're making a mess.
I should point out to Barr that my views here are being censored as well.
It it walks like a duck, I mean troll...
Maybe that will tilt things.
No it won't. They'll see my posts too and realise what a prat you are. Stop repeating folly and nobody will think you're dumb.
Re: Section 230 puts the blame on posters, not platforms
Section 230 is not responsible for that, the gangs and their members are. Litmus test: who uploads and posts the internet fighting items -- the platform or the gang members?
If you're blaming the platform for not taking the posts down quickly enough you're basically asking for every internet user to have their comments checked before their posts go live. That means yours. Is that what you want?
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re:
That is true. Serial killers usually start on animals. He needs to lose his gun, his badge, and his job, stat.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like your idea, Urza, but it needs work if it's going to be put into action. I'm thinking of an item you can plug in and switch on as most people -- myself included -- are not technically minded. Forming a community of people running nodes would be problematic as finding such people might not be easy. I wouldn't know where to look among my own neighbours, for example.
If there was a way to collaborate online to locate nearby nodes and connect to them via the kind of portable system I'm thinking of, that would work, but it wold rely on like-minded people living nearby and on having a regular ISP setup as a backup in case that failed. Could it be done? I don't know enough about mesh networking to do anything but imagine and hope.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was taught to argue both sides as a child, I've continued to do so ever since. It helps in debating as I can understand the other side's viewpoint even though I disagree with it. As a result of this I follow a wide range of people on Twitter from full-on left wingers to pretty hard right, e.g. David French. This gives me a good balance, IMHO, without including anti-vaxxers, Trump cultists, and assorted freaks. Their crap still comes up in my feed when others retweet it, but it doesn't drown out all the other stuff I'm interested in.
I understand some work is being done in terms of teaching children how to tell the difference between reliable sources and fake news; we need more of that.
As for the actual fix, we need to deal firmly with the social issues that encourage people to act like jerks.
On the post: YouTube Takes Down Live Stream Over Copyright Claim...Before Stream Even Starts
Re: Re:
What TOG says. Copyright began as censorship to stop Protestantism from spreading. It failed.
On the post: Threatcast 2020: Our New Brainstorming Game To Explore Disinformation In The 2020 Election
Re: Re:
People who want to kill people will find a way to do it, AC.
I agree we shouldn't make it easy for them to do so.
That said, speech is a different thing to guns and should be addressed in a different way. Fun fact: if we did more to address our social problems it'd not only reduce the fake news problem it'd also reduce the gun violence problem.
On the post: Threatcast 2020: Our New Brainstorming Game To Explore Disinformation In The 2020 Election
Re: Re:
China hasn't shut down, it's just taking precautions till this passes. And it will. We've gotten very good at controlling pandemics.
On the post: CBS Gets Angry Joe's YouTube Review Of 'Picard' Taken Down For Using 26 Seconds Of The Show's Trailer
Re: Re: Re:
Good one, nasch.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Settle down, Urza. I was responding to this:
I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While the issues wouldn't be massively alleviated it'd be a start.
Moderation is a different thing and, at scale, is hard to do well. Mike's idea of protocols rather than platforms is a step in that direction.
Sooner or later we're going to have to address the social issues that drive people to bad behaviour; people are the problem here.
We also need to look harder at owing our own online spaces; I block and mute judiciously to keep crap out of my feed. I don't mind people disagreeing with me as it makes for a lively debate— just don't be a jerk about it.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such people exist; I usually call them "mad proggies" except where they appear on the right wanting to ban sexual content.
That said, moderation is essential to keep discourse moving, otherwise the public space is ceded to the most obnoxious.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re:
It's not easy at all. With users uploading and sharing content over and over again, you'd need at least one moderator per hundred or so to keep on top of it all. No one could afford to do that, so they automate as much as possible. Even if they could afford to have that many moderators the choices they make are subjective and there's a lot of burnout over the horrible crap they have to deal with.
On the post: Is William Barr's Latest Attack On Section 230 Simply An Effort To Harm Tech Companies For Blocking His Desire To Kill Encryption?
Re: Re: Re:
I recently changed jobs; the crap still up about me on ROR made no difference to my boss's hiring choices. In any case, he's smart enough to be able to tell the difference between a troll post on the likes of 4chan and a genuine complaint.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It'd lead to the collapse of the business. Consider this: we have a bunch of resident trolls who whine about having their posts hidden behind grey text. Imagine the cries of "Censorship, by God!" from all the "conservatives," etc., should such a scheme be implemented.
You're asking for the evisceration of the First Amendment. No.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he wants it held for moderation and approved before being posted. I.E. he's all about censorship and approved speech. This sounds reasonable to people who honestly believe this will only be used to weed out nazis, but as the experience of the people of Poland has shown, it can and would be abused.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Facebook can be broken up by splitting off the functions and other platform properties, e.g. Whatsapp. Then regulate them so they can't use ad tracking against people's will. That should help.
On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech
Re: Re:
@cpt kangarooski you are at liberty to start your own social media platform and to run it as you please. Assume you do and that it's instantly popular with tons of subscribers and you are now a billionaire.
Trouble enters paradise when the nazis, anti-vaxxers and other numbnuts come along and start spreading all kinds of crap on your platform. It's easy enough to delete their crap and ban them, etc., but you're running into two problems:
What are you going to do about it?
On the post: Facial Recognition Company Clearview Lied About Its Crime-Solving Power In Pitches To Law Enforcement Agencies
Re:
LOL! Are you even kidding me? Corporate malfeasance is everywhere. Read more Techdirt.
On the post: UK Ignores US, Won't Fully Ban Huawei Gear From Its Networks
Re: Re: Trade Talks
LOL! The UK is already being pressured by the US on multiple fronts. I remember not too long ago that being forced to accept chlorinated chicken with no labelling to indicate what sort of crap was in it was one of the arguments against Brexit. Every Brexiter then hopped in to tell us that if Americans were happy with it, what's the problem?
Also, it's easier to tack on to an existing trade deal than to negotiate a completely separate one. Seeing Boris's track record, what he'll actually do is "negotiate" a worse FTA than that. His existing Brexit deal is worse than May's; he only got it through by holding a Night of the Long Knives event where he purged dissenters from the party and rammed the Lords with compliant picks.
On the post: Is William Barr's Latest Attack On Section 230 Simply An Effort To Harm Tech Companies For Blocking His Desire To Kill Encryption?
Re: Reputation
Again with this! Give it up, man!!
Remember how someone posted lies about me on various platforms, then contacted my employers to try to get me fired from my job?
post rebuttals and contact the platform with evidence that the troll's "reviews" were false. Most of the platforms took the comments down; the one that left the comment up allowed me to post a rebuttal, so every time Hamilton brings it up, he's linking to the rebuttal as well, which is why nobody ever takes him seriously.
Advise my employers it was troll activity
** Get a statement from the police to prove I wasn't being investigated for the crimes the troll had falsely accused me of.
Result: no harm, I was promoted afterwards.
Why do you keep flogging the damn horse? It's dead. Leave it. You're making a mess.
It it walks like a duck, I mean troll...
No it won't. They'll see my posts too and realise what a prat you are. Stop repeating folly and nobody will think you're dumb.
On the post: Stop Blaming Algorithms For Misinformation And Threats To Democracy; The Real Problem Is Societal
Re: Section 230 puts the blame on posters, not platforms
Section 230 is not responsible for that, the gangs and their members are. Litmus test: who uploads and posts the internet fighting items -- the platform or the gang members?
If you're blaming the platform for not taking the posts down quickly enough you're basically asking for every internet user to have their comments checked before their posts go live. That means yours. Is that what you want?
Next >>