Yes, but the part that kinda goes without saying is:
Capitalism may need some guard rails. And where the regulations now seem to work in favor of this style of business, maybe they shouldn't? Maybe Intellectual Property rights are being bent out of shape to harm the general public. Maybe regs and laws should limit a company's ability to succeed at this game, because, as you point out, of course they will do it if they can.
I mean, at some point, Techdirt should write something that is generally against abuses of intellectual property rent-seeking. But, until then, we'll have to read between the lines.
One of the best features of Google search, other search, and YouTube, Facebook, etc. is that people will find whatever it is they are seeking. That applies whether it's true or false, benevolent / benign / or beastly.
So, in these random walk experiments, what we're really testing is whether YouTube will take a neutral viewer, and feed them radical content, and the results seem to be no. That's good, but...
I'm more interested in an experiment where you take a YouTube viewer who starts with a slightly "disinformation" video request or inbound link, then where does the random walk take them. Because I think THAT's what's happening.
And this is fully in agreement with your point, Mike, that they see some disinfo elsewhere or hear about it on Fox News, then link-in or seek it on YouTube. But THEN what happens?
Anecdotally, my dumb friend was "just asking questions" about a flat earth about 7 years ago. One year later, he was sure of it, and had started into a bunch of other conspiracies. YouTube may not start people down the wrong path, but it does seem to provide them the "rabbit hole", should they start that way.
Just to back you up, this spring, I took a trip to the Canyons and red rocks of Utah & Nevada. We set out on a hike at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon wearing good hiking gear, shoes, etc, and went down just one hour of the Rim Trail.
There, one arrives at a scenic viewpoint, so naturally, we stopped for some photos and our packed lunch. My teen kids took the mandatory Instagram photos, but were competing for the best photo spots with two absolutely stunningly pretty 20-somethings, with Friday-night-clubbing makeup, wearing flowing sundresses and high heels. Remember, this is an hour hike down a steep canyon rim! Of course these girls didn't hike there in the high heels, but they were walking around the uneven terrain wearing them now. My teens took a dozen pics or so, and came back to eat lunch.
By virtue of our lunch break, I was able to notice that the two formalwear ladies continued taking pictures the entire time, and were still taking them when we left the area about an hour after arriving. I imagine they had hundreds of photos each. Who knows how long they stayed before putting on some real shoes and hiking up the 2000 vertical feet.
Now, hundreds of photos - that takes time to select the best of the batch, edit, apply filters, so they were probably setting themselves up for an evening of work -- all in a bid to "present" an illusion of effortless beauty "living the easy life" across America.
As much as I was struck by the fake nature of their story, I was also impressed by the work ethic. These were not amateurs, these were professionals doing a job. Much as this Techdirt blog was/is a news blog without the classical trappings of a WSJ, they are the modelling industry without an agency, photog, and magazine contract.
How could my teenagers photos ever compete without similar effort? Do they really want to? I'm glad they got to see one reality behind the images they see everyday.
Since then, damn the COVID, I spent some time in Paris, and now I watch out for similar "semi-pros" at other renown viewpoints, and sure enough, they're present.
"Now, as with anything in content moderation (and perhaps in politics), it is often difficult to judge who is a good faith actor who might just be massively ignorant or confused, and who is just a bad faith actor looking to abuse the system. And that is a real concern -- and there can be problems when legitimately ignorant people who mean well are dismissed or judged as bad faith trolls. And, of course, there is a legitimate concern about what happens when good faith individuals are dismissed as being in bad faith without considering what they say."
What you typed above is a lot like guerilla warfare that we learned in Vietnam, or in Afghanistan. When the VC were wildly outnumbered, and had inferior arms and resources as the Americans, they declined to fight a conventional war with a front and two armies facing off. Why would they, when that would mean certain defeat? Instead, they disappeared into the jungles or villages, blending in or hiding until they would strike, then disappear back into the cover. Same with the Taliban - and the same with bad faith actors online.
They will make their bad faith arguments, but not face-to-face in a fair debate of ideas, but rather as surprise raids, sabotage, and subterfuge. And they will use the cover of blending in with the other villagers when you make a strong case and bring receipts.
When 75% of people in the US don't like the right wing extremist ideas, like banning abortions for rape victims, the 25% CANNOT win the debate in a democracy by fighting fair, or debating in good faith. So they don't.
"But, turn that around and apply it to someone who is purposefully pushing the boundaries and gaming the system, whether trolling for lols or grifting gullible suckers, and suddenly you realize how such a request creates even more problems. Because the bad faith actor doesn't care. They don't actually want to learn what they did wrong to be better. They want to (1) cause problems for the site and (2) collect information so that next time, they can exploit that knowledge to engage in further bad acts without getting caught."
This is exactly what many of us on the left or the actual Free Speech defenders are doing on Gettr, Parler, etc, or even the Texas Abortion Snitch Hotline. Our "side" goes in there and tries to flood their site with shit, porn, and furries. The goal is to make a joke of their platform, and we're just trying to play by the rules enough to be able to continue posting nonsense. In this way, we're very much using the techniques you describe.
So, if we're being dicks - on purpose - how can we be the good guys?
Well, in our defense: our motivation to push the boundaries on those sides is to reveal PRECISELY how those site's raison d'etre is a pile of steaming bullshit. The sites claim they had to leave Twitter, FB, et al because their "free speech" was being limited, so they created this site where "free speech rules the day". So, attacking them with piles of garbage speech is a direct attack on their hypocrisy. They, in fact, do try to block the garbage. They never were about free speech where garbage should be allowed to exist right beside brilliant prose. They were about flooding the zone with their BS, and they didn't like being told they couldn't. They said they were against moderation, so we prove them wrong. We FORCED them to admit, through their actions, that they are actually FOR moderation. This, ultimately, helps the earlier social sites make their case that private site moderation is necessary and a useful part of enabling speech.
All they have to do to get us off their backs is admit they're not about free speech, but rather about promoting a specific narrative. Then, we'd probably get bored and move on.
"Yeah, but you only find that out after your dead, spending a million dollars defending it in court."
Oh, come on, Mike. Quit being so dramatic. What do you know about a small company facing death because of some frivolous lawsuit trying to stifle the websites right to free speech by ruining it with legal costs and distraction?
Could never happen. The Law and the Courts are perfect, and could never by abused in such a way.
Try Harder. I'm Gawking at your Hulking Hoagie hyperlinks in Teal. This is like getting a Shiv-a prison knife- SLAPPed across your genuine articles.
I can't stand it, I know you planned it
I'm gonna set it straight, this Watergate
I can't stand rocking when I'm in here
'Cause your crystal ball ain't so crystal clear
So while you sit back and wonder why
I got this fucking thorn in my side
Oh my God, it's a mirage
I'm tellin' y'all, it's a sabotage
We need "...pressure on Members of Parliament and some good old public outrage, to stand a chance of making this government pause before barreling forward with this disastrous plan."
Good thing we can count on conventional media to raise the level of awareness of this Bill. We know how much they will move mountains to protect free expression on the Internet, and the big social networks.
Sounds great to me.
Ever corporate legal team I ever worked under, if I dared to ask, would start with "NO! Do nothing." cuz that was the zero risk move. And you'd have to claw your way back to something you could actually do.
I agree with you, Samuel.
Trump made hundreds of threats in that manner as President. And he meant them, and followed through on many.
It's impossible to tell if it's a regular Internet smartass, or a unhinged person deliberately using plausibly deniable language.
It's a bit like Poe's Law...for threats of violence.
So, I'm OK if US Marshalls measure the threat as "worrisome" & go get a subpoena legitimately. Although I can't see how they have the resources to chase down all of these low-level threats online.
In this case, I'd mostly be pissed, as Mike is, for Marshalls wasting his resources for (in the end) nothing.
Good starting list, Mike. A Focus on UGC, for sure.
You make no claims that your list is exhaustive, but I'll just point out that entire categories would need to be added. Banking, for example, is an important use of the Internet, so I'd need to see small and large banks, investment firms.
Also, so many of the bits today are video content from the likes of Netflix, and other players big and small. Of course, we should be sure those are well-represented in the test suite.
Marginalized Communities often bear the brunt of bad policy. So sites from minority affinity groups, or the ACLU, SPLC, NAACP, etc should all be there.
Basically, even if the list had 1,000 companies, it would still be missing important "test cases".
But for starters, the next time Congress calls "Internet companies" to DC to sit in front of some Committee that doesn't understand shit...PLEASE DO NOT MAKE IT THE SAME GAFA COMPANIES every single time, as if they represent "Silicon Valley", tech, the web, or innovation. They don't. What you get is opinions that represent two constituencies:
1 Billionaires
2 Giant Tech Incumbents
Re: Re: On the ZOMBIE front, here's "Derek" out, 2nd 2 year gap!
Also, "OLDEST found! 30 Apr 2001"??
That's bullshit! I sent Mike plenty of replies prior to that date.
I've been a Techdirt subscriber since 1997 or thereabouts, when it was an email newsletter, and I DEMAND my loyalty program rewards:
I get free refills of Mike's shitty coffee whenever I go to the Plug and Play Tech Center, and nobody's taking that away from me.
Mike, if you think you can make up a fake personality like "Miner 49" to save yourself 73 cents of Keurig and Coffee Mate, I will bring fucking receipts. I still have my Eudora files from the Cornell server (not kidding, I actually do).
Re: On the ZOMBIE front, here's "Derek" out, 2nd 2 year gap!
I appreciate the shout out.
Yes, 762 ARTICLES, not just comments!!
Also, they hold up pretty well.
Thanks for keeping stats. I feel like a pro baseball player.
What's the bracketed (131)...you know what, just post the answer here. I'll come back and check in 18 months.
So, if I'm an Aussie, and see a cool news story on the Sydney Morning Herald's website, and I want to share it with my mates, can I post a link to the Herald story in my Facebook feed/timeline/wall?
I imagine that's still OK for individuals, but it's Facebook's official "news" category that stopped hosting those links, right?
This is why the recently-named "cancel culture" is actually another "Big Lie", and one that's been perpetuated for at least 4 decades. "Don't believe the media" is the refuge of autocrats throughout history, and the GOP has cultivated that seed and grown that crop with year-after-year of rancid fertilizer sprayed from the mouths of Newts to Joshes.
On the post: Devin Nunes Retires From Congress To Spend More Time Banning Satirical Cows From Trump's New Social Network
HONEYPOT ALERT
Nah, he's just going to Truth Social to lure @DevinCow into opening an account...so he can finally get the IPs, etc, and see who TF it is!!
Beware, cow. That grass isn't greener!
OTOH, this allows the rest of us to create a Spartacus moment over at Truth:
I'm Devincow.
No, I'm Devincow.
I'm DevinsCows.
No, I'm DevinsCow.
On the post: Why Are Drug Prices So High? Because Asshole McKinsey Consultants Figure Out Ways To Re-Patent The Same Drugs Over And Over
Re: The reason companies exist
Yes, but the part that kinda goes without saying is:
Capitalism may need some guard rails. And where the regulations now seem to work in favor of this style of business, maybe they shouldn't? Maybe Intellectual Property rights are being bent out of shape to harm the general public. Maybe regs and laws should limit a company's ability to succeed at this game, because, as you point out, of course they will do it if they can.
I mean, at some point, Techdirt should write something that is generally against abuses of intellectual property rent-seeking. But, until then, we'll have to read between the lines.
On the post: Why Are Drug Prices So High? Because Asshole McKinsey Consultants Figure Out Ways To Re-Patent The Same Drugs Over And Over
Abbottgarry Abbott Ross
Iphone: The new "steak knives"
On the post: The Whole YouTube Radicalizes People Story Doesn't Seem To Have Much Evidence To Back It Up
People Get What They Seek
One of the best features of Google search, other search, and YouTube, Facebook, etc. is that people will find whatever it is they are seeking. That applies whether it's true or false, benevolent / benign / or beastly.
So, in these random walk experiments, what we're really testing is whether YouTube will take a neutral viewer, and feed them radical content, and the results seem to be no. That's good, but...
I'm more interested in an experiment where you take a YouTube viewer who starts with a slightly "disinformation" video request or inbound link, then where does the random walk take them. Because I think THAT's what's happening.
And this is fully in agreement with your point, Mike, that they see some disinfo elsewhere or hear about it on Fox News, then link-in or seek it on YouTube. But THEN what happens?
Anecdotally, my dumb friend was "just asking questions" about a flat earth about 7 years ago. One year later, he was sure of it, and had started into a bunch of other conspiracies. YouTube may not start people down the wrong path, but it does seem to provide them the "rabbit hole", should they start that way.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Scandals: The Banality Of Hubris; The Messiness Of Humanity
Re:
Just to back you up, this spring, I took a trip to the Canyons and red rocks of Utah & Nevada. We set out on a hike at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon wearing good hiking gear, shoes, etc, and went down just one hour of the Rim Trail.
There, one arrives at a scenic viewpoint, so naturally, we stopped for some photos and our packed lunch. My teen kids took the mandatory Instagram photos, but were competing for the best photo spots with two absolutely stunningly pretty 20-somethings, with Friday-night-clubbing makeup, wearing flowing sundresses and high heels. Remember, this is an hour hike down a steep canyon rim! Of course these girls didn't hike there in the high heels, but they were walking around the uneven terrain wearing them now. My teens took a dozen pics or so, and came back to eat lunch.
By virtue of our lunch break, I was able to notice that the two formalwear ladies continued taking pictures the entire time, and were still taking them when we left the area about an hour after arriving. I imagine they had hundreds of photos each. Who knows how long they stayed before putting on some real shoes and hiking up the 2000 vertical feet.
Now, hundreds of photos - that takes time to select the best of the batch, edit, apply filters, so they were probably setting themselves up for an evening of work -- all in a bid to "present" an illusion of effortless beauty "living the easy life" across America.
As much as I was struck by the fake nature of their story, I was also impressed by the work ethic. These were not amateurs, these were professionals doing a job. Much as this Techdirt blog was/is a news blog without the classical trappings of a WSJ, they are the modelling industry without an agency, photog, and magazine contract.
How could my teenagers photos ever compete without similar effort? Do they really want to? I'm glad they got to see one reality behind the images they see everyday.
Since then, damn the COVID, I spent some time in Paris, and now I watch out for similar "semi-pros" at other renown viewpoints, and sure enough, they're present.
On the post: The Challenge In Content Moderation And Politics: How Do You Deal With Bad Faith Actors?
Social Network Guerrilla Warfare
"Now, as with anything in content moderation (and perhaps in politics), it is often difficult to judge who is a good faith actor who might just be massively ignorant or confused, and who is just a bad faith actor looking to abuse the system. And that is a real concern -- and there can be problems when legitimately ignorant people who mean well are dismissed or judged as bad faith trolls. And, of course, there is a legitimate concern about what happens when good faith individuals are dismissed as being in bad faith without considering what they say."
What you typed above is a lot like guerilla warfare that we learned in Vietnam, or in Afghanistan. When the VC were wildly outnumbered, and had inferior arms and resources as the Americans, they declined to fight a conventional war with a front and two armies facing off. Why would they, when that would mean certain defeat? Instead, they disappeared into the jungles or villages, blending in or hiding until they would strike, then disappear back into the cover. Same with the Taliban - and the same with bad faith actors online.
They will make their bad faith arguments, but not face-to-face in a fair debate of ideas, but rather as surprise raids, sabotage, and subterfuge. And they will use the cover of blending in with the other villagers when you make a strong case and bring receipts.
When 75% of people in the US don't like the right wing extremist ideas, like banning abortions for rape victims, the 25% CANNOT win the debate in a democracy by fighting fair, or debating in good faith. So they don't.
On the post: The Challenge In Content Moderation And Politics: How Do You Deal With Bad Faith Actors?
Wait...I'm the Bad Guy?
"But, turn that around and apply it to someone who is purposefully pushing the boundaries and gaming the system, whether trolling for lols or grifting gullible suckers, and suddenly you realize how such a request creates even more problems. Because the bad faith actor doesn't care. They don't actually want to learn what they did wrong to be better. They want to (1) cause problems for the site and (2) collect information so that next time, they can exploit that knowledge to engage in further bad acts without getting caught."
This is exactly what many of us on the left or the actual Free Speech defenders are doing on Gettr, Parler, etc, or even the Texas Abortion Snitch Hotline. Our "side" goes in there and tries to flood their site with shit, porn, and furries. The goal is to make a joke of their platform, and we're just trying to play by the rules enough to be able to continue posting nonsense. In this way, we're very much using the techniques you describe.
So, if we're being dicks - on purpose - how can we be the good guys?
Well, in our defense: our motivation to push the boundaries on those sides is to reveal PRECISELY how those site's raison d'etre is a pile of steaming bullshit. The sites claim they had to leave Twitter, FB, et al because their "free speech" was being limited, so they created this site where "free speech rules the day". So, attacking them with piles of garbage speech is a direct attack on their hypocrisy. They, in fact, do try to block the garbage. They never were about free speech where garbage should be allowed to exist right beside brilliant prose. They were about flooding the zone with their BS, and they didn't like being told they couldn't. They said they were against moderation, so we prove them wrong. We FORCED them to admit, through their actions, that they are actually FOR moderation. This, ultimately, helps the earlier social sites make their case that private site moderation is necessary and a useful part of enabling speech.
All they have to do to get us off their backs is admit they're not about free speech, but rather about promoting a specific narrative. Then, we'd probably get bored and move on.
On the post: Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong
Try Harder...Charles Harder
"Yeah, but you only find that out after your dead, spending a million dollars defending it in court."
Oh, come on, Mike. Quit being so dramatic. What do you know about a small company facing death because of some frivolous lawsuit trying to stifle the websites right to free speech by ruining it with legal costs and distraction?
Could never happen. The Law and the Courts are perfect, and could never by abused in such a way.
Try Harder. I'm Gawking at your Hulking Hoagie hyperlinks in Teal. This is like getting a Shiv-a prison knife- SLAPPed across your genuine articles.
On the post: Home Depot Tech Will Brick Power Tools If They're Stolen. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
I'm Kinda Stealing This Take
I can't stand it, I know you planned it
I'm gonna set it straight, this Watergate
I can't stand rocking when I'm in here
'Cause your crystal ball ain't so crystal clear
So while you sit back and wonder why
I got this fucking thorn in my side
Oh my God, it's a mirage
I'm tellin' y'all, it's a sabotage
On the post: Canadian Government Continues Its War On Internet Freedom With New 'Online Harms' Legislation
Conventional Media
We need "...pressure on Members of Parliament and some good old public outrage, to stand a chance of making this government pause before barreling forward with this disastrous plan."
Good thing we can count on conventional media to raise the level of awareness of this Bill. We know how much they will move mountains to protect free expression on the Internet, and the big social networks.
Oh oh.
On the post: Techdirt Has Been Released From A Gag Order Regarding A Federal Investigation Into A Silly Comment
Re: Re: To the Popehatmobile!
Sounds great to me.
Ever corporate legal team I ever worked under, if I dared to ask, would start with "NO! Do nothing." cuz that was the zero risk move. And you'd have to claw your way back to something you could actually do.
On the post: Techdirt Has Been Released From A Gag Order Regarding A Federal Investigation Into A Silly Comment
Re: To the Popehatmobile!
Goddamit.
I read your headline and immediately heard the spinny bat trumpet riff in my head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDMSRY3HMdM
On the post: Techdirt Has Been Released From A Gag Order Regarding A Federal Investigation Into A Silly Comment
Re: In fairness to the Marshalls...
I agree with you, Samuel.
Trump made hundreds of threats in that manner as President. And he meant them, and followed through on many.
It's impossible to tell if it's a regular Internet smartass, or a unhinged person deliberately using plausibly deniable language.
It's a bit like Poe's Law...for threats of violence.
So, I'm OK if US Marshalls measure the threat as "worrisome" & go get a subpoena legitimately. Although I can't see how they have the resources to chase down all of these low-level threats online.
In this case, I'd mostly be pissed, as Mike is, for Marshalls wasting his resources for (in the end) nothing.
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
Re:
Hmmm. Not much value add in that post.
Similar to mine here.
But at least mine makes sense.
On the post: The Internet Is Not Just Facebook, Google & Twitter: Creating A 'Test Suite' For Your Great Idea To Regulate The Internet
Banking, Netflix, & Chill
Good starting list, Mike. A Focus on UGC, for sure.
You make no claims that your list is exhaustive, but I'll just point out that entire categories would need to be added. Banking, for example, is an important use of the Internet, so I'd need to see small and large banks, investment firms.
Also, so many of the bits today are video content from the likes of Netflix, and other players big and small. Of course, we should be sure those are well-represented in the test suite.
Marginalized Communities often bear the brunt of bad policy. So sites from minority affinity groups, or the ACLU, SPLC, NAACP, etc should all be there.
Basically, even if the list had 1,000 companies, it would still be missing important "test cases".
But for starters, the next time Congress calls "Internet companies" to DC to sit in front of some Committee that doesn't understand shit...PLEASE DO NOT MAKE IT THE SAME GAFA COMPANIES every single time, as if they represent "Silicon Valley", tech, the web, or innovation. They don't. What you get is opinions that represent two constituencies:
1 Billionaires
2 Giant Tech Incumbents
On the post: The Internet Is Not Just Facebook, Google & Twitter: Creating A 'Test Suite' For Your Great Idea To Regulate The Internet
Re: Re: On the ZOMBIE front, here's "Derek" out, 2nd 2 year gap!
Also, "OLDEST found! 30 Apr 2001"??
That's bullshit! I sent Mike plenty of replies prior to that date.
I've been a Techdirt subscriber since 1997 or thereabouts, when it was an email newsletter, and I DEMAND my loyalty program rewards:
I get free refills of Mike's shitty coffee whenever I go to the Plug and Play Tech Center, and nobody's taking that away from me.
Mike, if you think you can make up a fake personality like "Miner 49" to save yourself 73 cents of Keurig and Coffee Mate, I will bring fucking receipts. I still have my Eudora files from the Cornell server (not kidding, I actually do).
On the post: The Internet Is Not Just Facebook, Google & Twitter: Creating A 'Test Suite' For Your Great Idea To Regulate The Internet
Re: On the ZOMBIE front, here's "Derek" out, 2nd 2 year gap!
I appreciate the shout out.
Yes, 762 ARTICLES, not just comments!!
Also, they hold up pretty well.
Thanks for keeping stats. I feel like a pro baseball player.
What's the bracketed (131)...you know what, just post the answer here. I'll come back and check in 18 months.
On the post: Australian News Sites Shocked & Upset To Learn They Don't Need To Rely On Facebook For Traffic!
Can a User Post a Link
Hey, Mike,
So, if I'm an Aussie, and see a cool news story on the Sydney Morning Herald's website, and I want to share it with my mates, can I post a link to the Herald story in my Facebook feed/timeline/wall?
I imagine that's still OK for individuals, but it's Facebook's official "news" category that stopped hosting those links, right?
On the post: Latest Anti-Accountability Move By Cops Involves Playing Music While Being Recorded In Hopes Of Triggering Copyright Takedowns
F DA POLICE
Which one of these cops will go full irony when invoking the Sacred Powers of the RIAA?
If I were them, I'd build a playlist with Fuck Da Police by NWA, followed by Alanis Morissette's Ironic.
On the post: Disingenuous, Lying, Whining, Bloviating, Insurrection Encouraging Senator Josh Hawley Given Pages Of Major Newspaper To Explain How He's Being Silenced
Re: Re: https://www.businessinsider.com/josh-hawley-defended-okl
"Already complaining about cancel culture in '95"
This is why the recently-named "cancel culture" is actually another "Big Lie", and one that's been perpetuated for at least 4 decades. "Don't believe the media" is the refuge of autocrats throughout history, and the GOP has cultivated that seed and grown that crop with year-after-year of rancid fertilizer sprayed from the mouths of Newts to Joshes.
Next >>