If there was a social media bias against any one side, 1.) yes it would still be a problem worthy of fixing, and 2.) if it were against Democrats, then they would totally be in favor of a fix. Fortunately, the solution is for government to "step out" of Section 230 protection for open platforms.
Censorship is when you encounter speech with which you disagree, and so you attempt to hide the speech for fear of others becoming informed, or agreeing with said speech.
Just because you are able say something in greater than zero places does not mean that censorship is not occurring. Soviet citizens could say things in the privacy of their own homes, but knew that it would be outlawed in public. Corporate censorship is very much occurring on social media. And make no mistake, corporate censorship on open platforms is no better in principle than government censorship.
Unauthorized Trump tax returns? Unverified Russian conspiracies? Twitter will allow it, which it should. But if a news site posts something that hurts a Democrat candidate, suddenly the censorship kicks into overdrive.
The the bias within social media corporations is at the core of the problem, and is the reason why support for Section 230 is eroding.
All in all, Twitter did seem to focus not on holding back speech, but on putting in a little friction, in an attempt to at least slow down the possibility for misinformation and disinformation to spread
Today, Twitter completely deleted the NY Post's original two tweets about the Hunter Biden corruption email story that they broke this morning. Apparently, simply holding back some speech has now escalated into deleting certain speech from the press. So while I'm sure that they want to editorialize and shadow-slowdown news that's embarrassing to them, the complete censorship is still very much the real focus.
I'd love to see someone create a backdoored communication system for law enforcement, and then challenge them to use it. Let them walk the talk first, while the rest of us sit back and watch the fire.
If the general public were to switch their belief from a general feeling that data on their smartphone is untouchable, to feeling that anyone with physical access can crack into it, then customers would demand better physical control. New features might defeat whatever methods grayshift currently uses. From the police standpoint, it's more useful for them to keep their techniques in the dark.
At a time when people proclaim to take the law into their own hands and "see a nazi punch a nazi", being falsely accused of being a nazi is among the most unforgivable slanders imaginable. Deleting a tweet isn't sufficient when a hate mob is chasing you.
Fake accounts. A billionaire buying up a bunch of profiles on social media to appear more popular. An SEO company setting up a bunch of websites to all point at a main website that they want to promote to fool an algorithm that that approximates usefulness. A commercial spammer creating a new account every day to advertise stuff. A Russian attempting to portrait himself as an American and buy advertisement space to run election ads.
It seems like it all revolves around identity. An anonymous one can be created out of thin air, and then abandoned after its cover is blown to avoid accountability. As I mentioned, this certainly comes with big downsides. But what if there were a decentralized identity authority? Or one that could allow an API to only reveal limited facts about the identity?
I'm just brainstorming here, and not saying that I endorse this type of idea but -- As one possible way to try and solve the problem, perhaps we could take away complete anonymity on the internet. This, of course would come with a number of disadvantages. But one benefit could be the elimination of fake accounts setup to artificially inflate support for certain ideas. Also, people from outside of the country might be identified prior to them engaging in election activities.
So is there a hybrid approach? Is there some way to provide some anonymity to users, yet also allow for unique identifiers that can prove ones identity to being a real person in a particular location?
The number of influenza cases this year is about 2.3%, which is way lower than the normal +20%.
Certainly, the number of cases can decrease when the country is on lockdown. But that doesn't change the IFR, or Infection Fatality Rate. It reduces fatalities by reducing the number of people who contract the disease. The IFR largely stays the same.
As an example, one website covidus dot com is reporting 30846 cases in the US and 541 deaths for today 10/07/20. So 1.7%, much better than the numbers from April, and also there's the problem of the 2 week time lag between contraction and death, but I'll keep going. If someone saved the case load from 2 weeks ago, perhaps we can recalculate later.
Now this is the CFR, not the IFR, and of course the IFR is much lower than the CFR. What percentage of infected need to go to the hospital? How many people are non-symptomatic? Estimates put it at a factor of 10, so now we're down to 0.17%. But people age 65 and older account for 80% of the deaths, so now we're down to 0.035% for the remainder age groups. So it's looking better for many than the 0.1% IFR for influenza.
you mean I'll have to click once in order to view your comments?
I reject your censorship-lite approach. We all know that Trump would have been completely censored if Twitter felt they could get away with it. The extra clicks and functionality elimination were designed so that the monopoly apologists could say "but he wasn't totally censored". Yet. This is exactly why section 230 needs some serious reform. Censorship IS on the line.
falsely claimed that the flu is more deadly than COVID-19
We have developed a number of treatments for coronavirus, and we understand it a lot better than we did 30 weeks ago. Fatality rates have been falling, despite a surge of infections. And if you compare the recent IFR of coronavirus to the influenza IFR, you might actually have a lower survival rate from influenza, depending on your age and preexisting conditions. But we can't talk about that here or we might get censored.
You sound upset that an old, overweight guy who subsists on McDonalds beat it over the weekend. Don't let the coronavirus dominate your life. Let go of the fear and the hate.
Lightly censored is a descriptive term to satisfy the leftist censors. If one were to say "Trump was censored yesterday", then the apologists counter with "no he wasn't totally censored because it's still possible to view the tweet, even if you have to do extra work, and you can't like it or RT it". The reality is that Trump would be totally censored, if big tech felt they could get away with it. And if even the President of the United States can be censored, then the little guys don't stand a chance. That's why a lot of people support the breakup of the tech monopolies and 230 reform.
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
Re:
Trump has been at odds with the DOJ before, I remember that under Sessions that he didn't like how they were operating either.
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
If there was a social media bias against any one side, 1.) yes it would still be a problem worthy of fixing, and 2.) if it were against Democrats, then they would totally be in favor of a fix. Fortunately, the solution is for government to "step out" of Section 230 protection for open platforms.
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is when you encounter speech with which you disagree, and so you attempt to hide the speech for fear of others becoming informed, or agreeing with said speech.
Just because you are able say something in greater than zero places does not mean that censorship is not occurring. Soviet citizens could say things in the privacy of their own homes, but knew that it would be outlawed in public. Corporate censorship is very much occurring on social media. And make no mistake, corporate censorship on open platforms is no better in principle than government censorship.
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
Two Standards
Unauthorized Trump tax returns? Unverified Russian conspiracies? Twitter will allow it, which it should. But if a news site posts something that hurts a Democrat candidate, suddenly the censorship kicks into overdrive.
The the bias within social media corporations is at the core of the problem, and is the reason why support for Section 230 is eroding.
On the post: Twitter Attempts To Add A Bit Of Friction In Run Up To The Election
Infinite Friction
Today, Twitter completely deleted the NY Post's original two tweets about the Hunter Biden corruption email story that they broke this morning. Apparently, simply holding back some speech has now escalated into deleting certain speech from the press. So while I'm sure that they want to editorialize and shadow-slowdown news that's embarrassing to them, the complete censorship is still very much the real focus.
On the post: Five Eyes Countries Band Together To Complain About Facebook And End-To-End Encryption
Government First
I'd love to see someone create a backdoored communication system for law enforcement, and then challenge them to use it. Let them walk the talk first, while the rest of us sit back and watch the fire.
On the post: San Diego PD Uses Police Charity To Buy Off-The-Books Phone Cracking Tech
Security Through Obscurity
If the general public were to switch their belief from a general feeling that data on their smartphone is untouchable, to feeling that anyone with physical access can crack into it, then customers would demand better physical control. New features might defeat whatever methods grayshift currently uses. From the police standpoint, it's more useful for them to keep their techniques in the dark.
On the post: Federal Judge Ridiculously Says That Holding A Sign Telling People Cops Are Ahead Is Not Free Speech
Opinionated
So in the future, make sure your sign reads "crooked cops ahead".
On the post: ICE Spent Your Tax Dollars Dragging A Journalist Through The Internet Sewer Over A Mistake She Apologized For
Dangerous Accusations
At a time when people proclaim to take the law into their own hands and "see a nazi punch a nazi", being falsely accused of being a nazi is among the most unforgivable slanders imaginable. Deleting a tweet isn't sufficient when a hate mob is chasing you.
On the post: Facebook Internal Memo Reveals Challenges Social Media Companies Face In Protecting Democracy
Re: Re: New Model
Fake accounts. A billionaire buying up a bunch of profiles on social media to appear more popular. An SEO company setting up a bunch of websites to all point at a main website that they want to promote to fool an algorithm that that approximates usefulness. A commercial spammer creating a new account every day to advertise stuff. A Russian attempting to portrait himself as an American and buy advertisement space to run election ads.
It seems like it all revolves around identity. An anonymous one can be created out of thin air, and then abandoned after its cover is blown to avoid accountability. As I mentioned, this certainly comes with big downsides. But what if there were a decentralized identity authority? Or one that could allow an API to only reveal limited facts about the identity?
On the post: Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix For 'Lewd Exhibition' Of Children In Its Movie 'Cuties'
Re: Re: Zoom
Nowadays, there are many reviews and write ups about movies and entertainment. You don't need to spend money to know what's going on.
On the post: Facebook Internal Memo Reveals Challenges Social Media Companies Face In Protecting Democracy
New Model
I'm just brainstorming here, and not saying that I endorse this type of idea but -- As one possible way to try and solve the problem, perhaps we could take away complete anonymity on the internet. This, of course would come with a number of disadvantages. But one benefit could be the elimination of fake accounts setup to artificially inflate support for certain ideas. Also, people from outside of the country might be identified prior to them engaging in election activities.
So is there a hybrid approach? Is there some way to provide some anonymity to users, yet also allow for unique identifiers that can prove ones identity to being a real person in a particular location?
On the post: Our New Monetization Experiment: Coil & The Web Monetization Protocol
Pioneering
I'll need to download Puma and give it a try. I always wondered if there wasn't a better way to design the internet than what we have today.
On the post: Donald Trump Now Wants To Repeal Section 230, Which Will Actually Make The Stuff He Complains About Worse
Re: Re: Shhhhh
Certainly, the number of cases can decrease when the country is on lockdown. But that doesn't change the IFR, or Infection Fatality Rate. It reduces fatalities by reducing the number of people who contract the disease. The IFR largely stays the same.
As an example, one website covidus dot com is reporting 30846 cases in the US and 541 deaths for today 10/07/20. So 1.7%, much better than the numbers from April, and also there's the problem of the 2 week time lag between contraction and death, but I'll keep going. If someone saved the case load from 2 weeks ago, perhaps we can recalculate later.
Now this is the CFR, not the IFR, and of course the IFR is much lower than the CFR. What percentage of infected need to go to the hospital? How many people are non-symptomatic? Estimates put it at a factor of 10, so now we're down to 0.17%. But people age 65 and older account for 80% of the deaths, so now we're down to 0.035% for the remainder age groups. So it's looking better for many than the 0.1% IFR for influenza.
On the post: Donald Trump Now Wants To Repeal Section 230, Which Will Actually Make The Stuff He Complains About Worse
Re: Re: Shhhhh
I reject your censorship-lite approach. We all know that Trump would have been completely censored if Twitter felt they could get away with it. The extra clicks and functionality elimination were designed so that the monopoly apologists could say "but he wasn't totally censored". Yet. This is exactly why section 230 needs some serious reform. Censorship IS on the line.
On the post: Donald Trump Now Wants To Repeal Section 230, Which Will Actually Make The Stuff He Complains About Worse
Shhhhh
We have developed a number of treatments for coronavirus, and we understand it a lot better than we did 30 weeks ago. Fatality rates have been falling, despite a surge of infections. And if you compare the recent IFR of coronavirus to the influenza IFR, you might actually have a lower survival rate from influenza, depending on your age and preexisting conditions. But we can't talk about that here or we might get censored.
On the post: Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix For 'Lewd Exhibition' Of Children In Its Movie 'Cuties'
Zoom
I hear they zoomed in on the crotch area during some dance scenes. It wasn't done for the art, it was done for the pesos. Ick.
On the post: Stop Pretending The Trump GOP Genuinely Cares About Monopoly Power
Re:
You sound upset that an old, overweight guy who subsists on McDonalds beat it over the weekend. Don't let the coronavirus dominate your life. Let go of the fear and the hate.
On the post: Stop Pretending The Trump GOP Genuinely Cares About Monopoly Power
Re: Re: Ooops
Lightly censored is a descriptive term to satisfy the leftist censors. If one were to say "Trump was censored yesterday", then the apologists counter with "no he wasn't totally censored because it's still possible to view the tweet, even if you have to do extra work, and you can't like it or RT it". The reality is that Trump would be totally censored, if big tech felt they could get away with it. And if even the President of the United States can be censored, then the little guys don't stand a chance. That's why a lot of people support the breakup of the tech monopolies and 230 reform.
On the post: Stop Pretending The Trump GOP Genuinely Cares About Monopoly Power
Ooops
You can tell that this was written in advance. Trump was just lightly-censored yesterday on twitter. This line didn't age well at all.
Next >>