err - read what I said more carefully - the second part - the bit about the truth being "in the middle" is not good advice - the first part "read more than one account" is certainly good advice - and I never argued against that!
The choice of the San-Bernardino case for this exercise is telling.
It was very high profile and nasty - allowing the FBI to tug strongly on the heart strings of anyone who might be tempted to oppose them. On the other hand the actual data they were looking for was pretty much moot - the perpetrators were dead - and anyone with a brain could tell that there were highly unlikely to be any unknown but direct associates out there that needed stopping from further atrocities.
Hence the process could safely be delayed whilst the court processes took place.
Of course the government will probably put in some nice wording to make any new law look innocuous - but experience shows that these words are often ignored or misinterpreted by the government (or its officials) when a real case arises.
The content of the article - and in particular the way that Kirsten Han was treated - do nothing to dissipate this worry.
Fake News has been a thing for a while, and while it never looked towards the leaders they ignored it.
I think it has been a thing for rather longer than you think, and I think the leaders haven't ignored it so much as created it.
It is well worth reading this wikipedia article.
The resonances with the current situation are quite startling.
Learn to look at more than one source, seek out the opposing viewpoint on the same topic... the truth will be somewhere in the middle of the 2 stories.
Actually the second part is usually not good advice. Quite often one side is wholly wrong - and often not the side you might have initially expected.
During the Brexit referendum the BBC frequently quoted a detailed analysis of some issue from the remain side and followed it with a flat, unsubstantiated, denial from the leavers. That kind of "balance" is quite destructive.
No doubt the Breitbarts and WorldNetDailys will publish their own versions. Someone will have a left-biased version. Someone else will have a politically neutral version with more credibility, and that'll upset the most people.
If only it were that simple....
Unfortunately, in recent history in my country (UK), scare stories about politicians on the left (eg Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock etc) have been more effective. Problem is that right wing politicians usually have their own money from generations back that looks "clean" on this type of measure - whereas those on the left are more financially challenged and hence more likely to be tempted into dodgier activities.
a rather excited and abusive conversation, that demonstrates the flaws with this idea. Flaws that also apply to the police version.
The basic flaw is that no-one understands why it produces the result it does.
These AI techniques have a long and inglorious history.
I'm not really aware of the rightwing speech that is legitimately taken down - because I don't visit the places where it might be found - however I am aware of a tendency to take down criticism of Islam (and I am talking about rational, fact based criticism of the ideology and history, not incitement to hatred or violence against its followers) on the part of Facebook and other platforms.
Now it seems (to my sorrow) that the majority of this speech comes from people on the right with whom I would disagree on most other issues and therefore this particular tranch of takedowns falls within the left/right bias claimed by Cruz (even though I detest most of what he stands for)
Actually if you scroll down there is quite a bit more detail of the experiment. Now I that I look at the detail there I admit that the words may not have been actually exactly identical* - but the differences seem to have been there to make them look more plausible rather than to bias the experiment.
There is quite a bit of detail there in the link - and you can judge for yourself.
* I think I was recalling someones else's summary in the first comment.
Because the left promotes treating Muslims like human beings
Huh - so you didn't notice when the SPLC accused Majid Nawaz
of "hate"
and you didn't notice the plight of Christians (and Hindus) in Pakistan - or even Christian Pakistanis in the UK or the Copts in Egypt or women in Iran who don't think the Hijab is a liberation. Or Somali women like Ayann Hirsi Ali who suffered from FGM (and desth threats from Muslims) and you didn't notice the plight of Atheist bloggers in Bangladesh (from vigilantes) or in Saudi Arabia(from the government) and how the SPLC attempts to demonise anyone who points this stuff out.
Your attempt to make this out to be something to do with race are pathetic.
I note that a Jewish group did an experiment in which they created new accounts and published anti-semitic/anti-Israel speech on some and anti-muslim/anti-palestinian speech on the others.
Apart from the targets, the words used were identical. One set of accounts got taken down, the others were left up. I'll leave you to guess which was which.
the online right is far more likely to engage in hate speech, harassment, incitement to violence, etc. than is the online left.
I hate to break it to you but that is not exactly true.
The online left may not do these things itself - but it does provide cover for the Islamic right which is by far the leader in threats, hate speech and violence worldwide.
Since this type of attack goes right back to the 7th century it is difficult to see how any modern social media corporation could be held liable for it.
Remember that the original "First they came for the..." speech starts with Communists.
Remember that at that point in time Communism was a murderous cult that was destroying Russia (starving the Ukraine to death)and attempting to take over the world. It looked like the authentic No. 1 evil in the world. Fascism at that point had not really shown its own evil face.
The implication then is that everyone's rights need to be defended, no matter how vile they seem to be - because the people with the power to persecute them always have the potential to become even worse.
But it's still important to remember that human-piloted counterparts cause 33,000 fatalities annually, a number that should be dramatically lower when self-driving car technology is inevitably implemented (correctly).
The keyword is correctly.
If the collision avoidance system that Uber disabled was present and working on all those human driven cars that fatality figure would already drop dramatically.
The point is this. A completely autonomous car, on the public roads, given current technology levels, is nothing other than a publicity stunt.
To run such a publicity stunt at present is stupid and selfish - and can only delay the technology. (Which will of course cost lives).
Don't get me wrong here. I fully support the use of technology to fix our road death problems - I just think that the way that Uber, Google etc are going about it is wrong.
At present we should concentrate on systems that monitor the human driver and intervene to prevent accidents. (As others have pointed out - this IS happening anyway).
Once these technologies are fully developed and universal we can move on to fully autonomous vehicles.
On the post: Singaporean Government Creates Fake News To Push Fake News Legislation
Re:
On the post: Singaporean Government Creates Fake News To Push Fake News Legislation
Re:
On the post: There Is No Going Dark: Another Vendor Selling Tool That Cracks All iPhones
Interesting
It was very high profile and nasty - allowing the FBI to tug strongly on the heart strings of anyone who might be tempted to oppose them. On the other hand the actual data they were looking for was pretty much moot - the perpetrators were dead - and anyone with a brain could tell that there were highly unlikely to be any unknown but direct associates out there that needed stopping from further atrocities.
Hence the process could safely be delayed whilst the court processes took place.
On the post: Singaporean Government Creates Fake News To Push Fake News Legislation
Beware
The content of the article - and in particular the way that Kirsten Han was treated - do nothing to dissipate this worry.
On the post: Singaporean Government Creates Fake News To Push Fake News Legislation
Re:
Fake News has been a thing for a while, and while it never looked towards the leaders they ignored it.
I think it has been a thing for rather longer than you think, and I think the leaders haven't ignored it so much as created it. It is well worth reading this wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter
The resonances with the current situation are quite startling.
Learn to look at more than one source, seek out the opposing viewpoint on the same topic... the truth will be somewhere in the middle of the 2 stories.
Actually the second part is usually not good advice. Quite often one side is wholly wrong - and often not the side you might have initially expected.
During the Brexit referendum the BBC frequently quoted a detailed analysis of some issue from the remain side and followed it with a flat, unsubstantiated, denial from the leavers. That kind of "balance" is quite destructive.
On the post: UK Police Use Zipcode Profiles, Garden Size And First Names For AI-Based Custody Decision System
Re: Re: Re:
No doubt the Breitbarts and WorldNetDailys will publish their own versions. Someone will have a left-biased version. Someone else will have a politically neutral version with more credibility, and that'll upset the most people.
If only it were that simple....
Unfortunately, in recent history in my country (UK), scare stories about politicians on the left (eg Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock etc) have been more effective. Problem is that right wing politicians usually have their own money from generations back that looks "clean" on this type of measure - whereas those on the left are more financially challenged and hence more likely to be tempted into dodgier activities.
a rather excited and abusive conversation, that demonstrates the flaws with this idea. Flaws that also apply to the police version.
The basic flaw is that no-one understands why it produces the result it does.
These AI techniques have a long and inglorious history.
On the post: UK Police Use Zipcode Profiles, Garden Size And First Names For AI-Based Custody Decision System
Re:
Politicians and public officials can be rated "high-risk", "moderate", etc., and the results released just before each election.
I've got a feeling that this might just produce exactly the opposite result to that which you are expecting/hoping for.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did say that you were not exactly right.
I'm not really aware of the rightwing speech that is legitimately taken down - because I don't visit the places where it might be found - however I am aware of a tendency to take down criticism of Islam (and I am talking about rational, fact based criticism of the ideology and history, not incitement to hatred or violence against its followers) on the part of Facebook and other platforms.
Now it seems (to my sorrow) that the majority of this speech comes from people on the right with whom I would disagree on most other issues and therefore this particular tranch of takedowns falls within the left/right bias claimed by Cruz (even though I detest most of what he stands for)
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're actually wrong, though.
There is quite a bit of detail there in the link - and you can judge for yourself.
* I think I was recalling someones else's summary in the first comment.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: More liberal partisan nonsense.
_ Hate speech is nonsense
No, it's one of the explicitly specified types of banned content on Facebook:_
That doesn't prove that it isn't nonsense...
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the left promotes treating Muslims like human beings
Huh - so you didn't notice when the SPLC accused Majid Nawaz of "hate"
and you didn't notice the plight of Christians (and Hindus) in Pakistan - or even Christian Pakistanis in the UK or the Copts in Egypt or women in Iran who don't think the Hijab is a liberation. Or Somali women like Ayann Hirsi Ali who suffered from FGM (and desth threats from Muslims) and you didn't notice the plight of Atheist bloggers in Bangladesh (from vigilantes) or in Saudi Arabia(from the government) and how the SPLC attempts to demonise anyone who points this stuff out.
Your attempt to make this out to be something to do with race are pathetic.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First - you misidentified my "team".
I've always been on the "left team"
Insofar as the problem is the left - it is the left not living up to our own ideals.
Let me show you an example of someone else on the left who "gets it":
https://conatusnews.com/peter-tatchell-london-pride/
Or are you accusing Peter Tatchell of being on the "right".
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: You're actually wrong, though.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-says-facebook-test-proves-anti-israel-bias/
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: You're actually wrong, though.
I note that a Jewish group did an experiment in which they created new accounts and published anti-semitic/anti-Israel speech on some and anti-muslim/anti-palestinian speech on the others.
Apart from the targets, the words used were identical. One set of accounts got taken down, the others were left up. I'll leave you to guess which was which.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re:
the online right is far more likely to engage in hate speech, harassment, incitement to violence, etc. than is the online left.
I hate to break it to you but that is not exactly true.
The online left may not do these things itself - but it does provide cover for the Islamic right which is by far the leader in threats, hate speech and violence worldwide.
On the post: Latest EU Copyright Plan Would Ban Copyright Holders From Using Creative Commons
how about?
On the post: Court Shuts Down Yet Another Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies Over Terrorist Attacks
History
On the post: Once Again, Algorithms Can't Tell The Difference Between 'Bad Stuff' And 'Reporting About Bad Stuff'
Re: A bit off-topic, but...
Remember that at that point in time Communism was a murderous cult that was destroying Russia (starving the Ukraine to death)and attempting to take over the world. It looked like the authentic No. 1 evil in the world. Fascism at that point had not really shown its own evil face.
The implication then is that everyone's rights need to be defended, no matter how vile they seem to be - because the people with the power to persecute them always have the potential to become even worse.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: I Didn't Know A Law Could Be Written And Passed That Quickly
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Correctly
But it's still important to remember that human-piloted counterparts cause 33,000 fatalities annually, a number that should be dramatically lower when self-driving car technology is inevitably implemented (correctly).
The keyword is correctly.
If the collision avoidance system that Uber disabled was present and working on all those human driven cars that fatality figure would already drop dramatically.
The point is this. A completely autonomous car, on the public roads, given current technology levels, is nothing other than a publicity stunt.
To run such a publicity stunt at present is stupid and selfish - and can only delay the technology. (Which will of course cost lives).
Don't get me wrong here. I fully support the use of technology to fix our road death problems - I just think that the way that Uber, Google etc are going about it is wrong.
At present we should concentrate on systems that monitor the human driver and intervene to prevent accidents. (As others have pointed out - this IS happening anyway). Once these technologies are fully developed and universal we can move on to fully autonomous vehicles.
Next >>