Ug, never proposals for education, grants for preferred alternative implementations, publicly funded communication platforms, recognition that the status quo is people's preference, data transparency encouragement (not user transparency...not "who", but "what" wrt internal analytics), enforcement of existing advertisement/fraud/collusion statutes, etc. The first step always has to be more legislation, very sad.
I'd argue in the scheme of things, it's not really that broken, and definitely not deserving of the type of fix we're in for. It's funny to watch the masses effectively manipulated into thinking there is effective mass manipulation occurring. I wish they'd just leave things alone personally, but since they won't and everyone is convinced this is a dire problem, I can only hope for restraint.
>recognition that the status quo is people's preference...I'd argue in the scheme of things, it's not really that broken
Continuing the status quo means the people in power stay in power. It therefore isn't surprising that the people in power prefer preserving the status quo. It also isn't surprising that the people who believe the system is broken and are most against the status quo are those that belong to historically oppressed groups. If you really think the system isn't broken, I suggest you look through the Twitter mentions of politically active famous women, POC, or LGBTQ members. The harassment they receive on a regular basis wouldn't be allowed in the physical world. Why do we allow it in the digital world?
To be fair, the only power people in Congress have is to pass legislation, so people in Congress will probably propose legislation if people with the power to do the other things you mention don't act to change things. The status quo you favor is most definitely _not_ what the vast majority prefers. And while it's unlikely that Congress will take the right tack here, Facebook and Twitter are at best willfully negligent actors. Their continued unwillingness to sincerely address the problems their platforms have created is shameful at this point. They have tremendous power and are using it poorly and for the wrong purposes. No one is in a better position to change the storyline than they are at this moment.
They will get it wrong till they get it right. The law isn't too different from software. It just deals with a lot more ambiguity. And people are conditioned to think things are black and white.
Social media and mainstream media will get three sets of regulation wrt
Privacy, Individual Manipulation, Group Manipulation. It doesn't matter which country you pick, the free for all that currently exists is not being tolerated.
If it makes you feel any better, nobody really gives a shit about these stupid regulations and nobody is going to stop folks from saying whatever they want here, or anywhere else if here becomes impractical. My personal website (not updated since forever) is my username dot com. And if ICANN turns against free speech there’s always pirate radio, every citizen who even considers “guns to protect us from the guvmint” should get trained as an amateur radio operator first.
(By the way, even as a supporter of the Second Amendment it is remarkable that in America one needs a license to operate a radio but not a rifle.)
Of course they won’t propose those other things (which would require “more legislation” too fwiw).
This move reinforces the location of the goal posts that define what is “acceptable discourse.” Along with supporting unfettered corporate control of the means of production. The economy must run on big business and nothing else, amirite?
This leak looks like a trial balloon. I'm fascinated by the notion that requiring disclosure of people's physical location, as well as demanding that they prove their identity, would be conducive to an online culture of free and healthy expression.
These proposals seem to be aimed at intimidation and breaching the privacy of each and everyone, rather than at the surveillance-like operations and propaganda-enabling structures of the Big Ad/Social Media companies.
> I'm fascinated by the notion that requiring disclosure of people's physical location, as well as demanding that they prove their identity, would be conducive to an online culture of free and healthy expression.
"Fascinated" isn't the word I would choose to describe it..
So, my local paper had a comment section that was dominated by the typical hysterical, unhinged, anonymous arguing between far right and far left partisans that we see in a lot of online discourse.
They changed to a "real name" policy and now the comments, while much reduced, are also much more thoughtful and tend to stay on-topic.
I think we have to be careful about making companies liable for everything their users upload. While companies like Google and Facebook have the computational capacity to scan everything that they consume, what about startups?
It shouldn't mean companies aren't liable for failing to remove content deemed illegal, but having it be illegal for any single thing to slip between the cracks seems harsh.
The Congressional hearings involving Mark Zuckerberg showed that Congress is not equipt to deal with the problems social media has brought to society. I am highly skepticle of anything the senate convinces themselves is the right way to deal with social media; it seems like an attempt to set the stage to grab more power and control than anything else.
Marketplaces don't self-regulate. Providing a level playing field, such as explicitly detailing a fiduciary duty to keep a subscriber's information confidential, is the role of government.
after returning to the United States as a citizen, I was detained briefly for visiting a trifecta of middle eastern countries. I'd informed them I was filming a cooking show for a broadcast network. I was asked for my social media accounts and passwords, and after confessing that I did not maintain any social media accounts I was kept for another 25 minutes for the same question by three different people.
Ah yes - empower politicians with regulatory powers, and expect them to not use it to their advantage while in power. Lest we forget, everything from gerrymandering to supposedly non-partisan agencies like the FCC have taken giant craps on the general public, and sided with the party in power.
At this point it seems clear that individual companies have disincentives that prevent them from acting against these issue. Most people in the tech community are generally opposed to the government getting involved since the government is often slow to understand and react to technological changes. I would generally agree with them. However we have to stop sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that things that are crimes in the analog world aren't crimes in the digital world (this includes campaign finance law). The only real option seems to be for the industry to come together and self regulate. Are any of the big tech companies actually working to make that happen? If no, it is only a matter of time before the government gets involved.
They will only have a disincentive to act when people are willing to leave toxic platforms, and people will only leave toxic platforms when there are viable alternatives.
I would agree with labeling automated bots but I think stopping anonymous accounts is going too far. What is wrong with anonymity? You can label the account as being intentionally anonymous but I don't think we need to go past that.
If people failed to see past the trolls this past election cycle, hopefully it will be a lesson learned. Most people here probably learned to spot/ignore trolls when they were 14 but a lot of voters are still new arrivals to the digital landscape.
If we need our government to confirm the information we use to make a decision, is it still a democracy? I still think that if you want a population that is responsible, you have to allow them the responsibility of figuring out what is true and what is not on their own.
I think the faster we make companies liable for the content on their servers the better. Why? Because I want distributed/federated data to become an actual priority to these companies. I want it to hit their bottom line when they get sued for content uploaded to their servers so they consider keeping the data owned by the user who generated it.
Surely you realize that making data a liability reduces the ability for you and I to host it, not increases it. I understand you are against centralization of data, but you can't magically commoditize and distribute it via punishments. You'll only strengthen those that can take a hit. While it seems mathematically logical to say "well, if we make it less financially beneficial to have data, they won't have it" what happens in practice is "well, if we make it less financially beneficial to have data, nobody will have it". There are alternatives to decentralization that have less effect on smaller orgs.
I’ve been working on that. It’s a hard problem, but emule works quite well. I propose something based on that: when you start a program, you advertise all the sha256’s of all the files you share. Whenever you need a resource, you send a request to the dht for its sha256. Anyone who has the file will opportunistically try to send it to you.
Since it’s a dht, there’s nothing to take down. And since it operates on sha256s of data, it’s implicitly secure. And it uses tor for the rendezvous, so it’s not possible to track who is requesting what, except by unique ID (which can just be a bitcoin wallet address you control).
The hard part is, what do you do about abuse? What if someone spams the network with bots that try to fulfill every request with bad data?
If anyone has research refs in this direction, I’d be grateful to read them. I’d also like to avoid a blockchain if possible, since it seems unnecessary for simple federated distributed data.
It's funny that their solution is removing privacy as opposed to combating gathering of data and sales of hypertargeted ads.
Here's the problem with the US legal system. This regulation (if passed) will likely fail to solve the problem but it will stay on the book and it won't be removed until idk...ever?
Does anyone truly believe that regulation is going to fix that in a way that leaves people the ability to freely express their thoughts -- something that is and should be a human right?
I think the real issue here is that social media has moved us to a place where people's real thoughts are visible to all, and the problem we need to solve is how society will work now that the genie is out of the bottle. Social media isn't the cause, it's helped us see the world more clearly.
Solving that problem is going to mean empowering people with the knowledge and tools to assess the quality of information they read and make decisions backed by critical thinking. This is a problem that needs to be solved by society, and expecting a governing body to prescribe to us how our society is meant to think is no solution.
The anonymous factor does allow people to voice their own thoughts without fear. It also allows people to lie without having their physical reputation damaged. They create new fake accounts if old ones become known to spread information. People take so much information that they read as gospel. Selective reporting and the use of loose "anonymous" sources by media outlets (who have become so partisan and biased in one direction or the other) have gone on to perpetuate this problem even further.
So, I am picturing the whiplash when a large part of the American left, that has been in favor of some kind of governmental control on companies like Facebook and Google, actually faces the possibility of the current administration being in charge of that regulation.
There's “large a part of the left” that supported legislation under which the executive branch would have discretionary regulatory power over Facebook and Google?
Online discourse has been the wild west since Usenet. This was alright 10 years ago, back when it only mostly a certain kind of person accessing the internet. Now social media more accurately reflects the world demographics. I've long believed some government-issued, OpenID-like identity platform would go a long way to enable a lot of other online activities (like voting), but saying government will do a better job solving problems than corporations is misunderstanding the issue. Before we run off trying to problems, we need to figure out what kind of online society we want. I'm not yet convinced anyone has really thought that through.
watch for the term "weaponized" when applied to speech as this is the next go to. by equating speech they don't like to warfare, arms dealers, and more, they can try to suppress it under the connotation of violence which is key because censorship of direct incitement of violence is permitted. The difference will be to twist it enough to fall under it, think of it as "for the children" but now suppressing any opinion they don't like.
as far as the big tech giants, well twitter's system was proven discriminatory as substituting white/Caucasian with any other race or religion will flag the comments; this was done based on the NYT hiring a tech writer whose twitter comments would be considered hateful but are excused because of the target and the person making them
it is not hard to prey on people's prejudices to take their rights from them. they will gladly accept restrictions if they think it only hurts people they don't like but may find one day they get in some other persons or algorithm's cross hairs
Anything coming from the party without power is dead in the water for now. Maybe it will inspire someone but this is just a waste of a cycle until then.
It is funny to think a capitalist government could regulate anything. If it makes money then it is good. If it doesn't make money then it is bad. If it challenges the current way we make money it is bad, unless it makes more money then the old way then it is good. The problem with social media is it sells its user base to the highest bidder. No sort of regulation is going to stop that. Social media not going to give the government a key to there land. They have lobbyist, secret ninja assassins, black mail, and a endless supply of money to throw at this problem to keep them going strong. What happen when the government try to regulate sugar? Soda companies paid for studies to prove sugar is good for you and is part of a balance diet. What will these social media companies do? For starters they will lie like they currently are stating the technology cannot keep up with fake news. They know when a user gets home they should entice him/her to look at there phone as soon as they walk through there door because they will score a minimal 15 min of eye ball time even if a baby is screaming bloodie murder for them. Machine learning can automate propaganda for entire country, but you telling me it cannot figure out a 1$ bought domain linking to a story for the first time might be fake news? The government will "regulate" social media so they look like they are doing something. The companies will make backdoor deals to benefit them. The american people will cheer with joy knowing there is no more fake news on there social media sites. And when some russian hackers get bored they will buy 10$ worth of ad space on facebook targeting extremist in america. Just so they can gamble what is the best way to get a moron to wave a assault rifle in front of the white house.
[+] [-] kodablah|7 years ago|reply
I'd argue in the scheme of things, it's not really that broken, and definitely not deserving of the type of fix we're in for. It's funny to watch the masses effectively manipulated into thinking there is effective mass manipulation occurring. I wish they'd just leave things alone personally, but since they won't and everyone is convinced this is a dire problem, I can only hope for restraint.
[+] [-] slg|7 years ago|reply
Continuing the status quo means the people in power stay in power. It therefore isn't surprising that the people in power prefer preserving the status quo. It also isn't surprising that the people who believe the system is broken and are most against the status quo are those that belong to historically oppressed groups. If you really think the system isn't broken, I suggest you look through the Twitter mentions of politically active famous women, POC, or LGBTQ members. The harassment they receive on a regular basis wouldn't be allowed in the physical world. Why do we allow it in the digital world?
[+] [-] skywhopper|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
The first step to each of the things you mentioned is legislation...
[+] [-] humlee|7 years ago|reply
Social media and mainstream media will get three sets of regulation wrt Privacy, Individual Manipulation, Group Manipulation. It doesn't matter which country you pick, the free for all that currently exists is not being tolerated.
[+] [-] guscost|7 years ago|reply
(By the way, even as a supporter of the Second Amendment it is remarkable that in America one needs a license to operate a radio but not a rifle.)
[+] [-] bofh1d10t|7 years ago|reply
This move reinforces the location of the goal posts that define what is “acceptable discourse.” Along with supporting unfettered corporate control of the means of production. The economy must run on big business and nothing else, amirite?
All those other things will undermine them.
[+] [-] ilove_banh_mi|7 years ago|reply
These proposals seem to be aimed at intimidation and breaching the privacy of each and everyone, rather than at the surveillance-like operations and propaganda-enabling structures of the Big Ad/Social Media companies.
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|7 years ago|reply
"Fascinated" isn't the word I would choose to describe it..
[+] [-] ams6110|7 years ago|reply
They changed to a "real name" policy and now the comments, while much reduced, are also much more thoughtful and tend to stay on-topic.
[+] [-] Teknoman117|7 years ago|reply
It shouldn't mean companies aren't liable for failing to remove content deemed illegal, but having it be illegal for any single thing to slip between the cracks seems harsh.
[+] [-] Kenji|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Venlin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clarkevans|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ada1981|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nimbius|7 years ago|reply
"you really dont have a facebook?"
[+] [-] writepub|7 years ago|reply
Hopefully, this never becomes law
[+] [-] 1001101|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acct1771|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] niij|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cirgue|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazynick4|7 years ago|reply
If people failed to see past the trolls this past election cycle, hopefully it will be a lesson learned. Most people here probably learned to spot/ignore trolls when they were 14 but a lot of voters are still new arrivals to the digital landscape.
If we need our government to confirm the information we use to make a decision, is it still a democracy? I still think that if you want a population that is responsible, you have to allow them the responsibility of figuring out what is true and what is not on their own.
[+] [-] wesleytodd|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kodablah|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawn|7 years ago|reply
Since it’s a dht, there’s nothing to take down. And since it operates on sha256s of data, it’s implicitly secure. And it uses tor for the rendezvous, so it’s not possible to track who is requesting what, except by unique ID (which can just be a bitcoin wallet address you control).
The hard part is, what do you do about abuse? What if someone spams the network with bots that try to fulfill every request with bad data?
If anyone has research refs in this direction, I’d be grateful to read them. I’d also like to avoid a blockchain if possible, since it seems unnecessary for simple federated distributed data.
[+] [-] adamnemecek|7 years ago|reply
Here's the problem with the US legal system. This regulation (if passed) will likely fail to solve the problem but it will stay on the book and it won't be removed until idk...ever?
[+] [-] ada1981|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nyxxie|7 years ago|reply
I think the real issue here is that social media has moved us to a place where people's real thoughts are visible to all, and the problem we need to solve is how society will work now that the genie is out of the bottle. Social media isn't the cause, it's helped us see the world more clearly.
Solving that problem is going to mean empowering people with the knowledge and tools to assess the quality of information they read and make decisions backed by critical thinking. This is a problem that needs to be solved by society, and expecting a governing body to prescribe to us how our society is meant to think is no solution.
[+] [-] GreenToad5|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rossdavidh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madrox|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] undersuit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|7 years ago|reply
as far as the big tech giants, well twitter's system was proven discriminatory as substituting white/Caucasian with any other race or religion will flag the comments; this was done based on the NYT hiring a tech writer whose twitter comments would be considered hateful but are excused because of the target and the person making them
it is not hard to prey on people's prejudices to take their rights from them. they will gladly accept restrictions if they think it only hurts people they don't like but may find one day they get in some other persons or algorithm's cross hairs
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gammateam|7 years ago|reply
> Democratic Senator
Anything coming from the party without power is dead in the water for now. Maybe it will inspire someone but this is just a waste of a cycle until then.
[+] [-] dominotw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smilesnd|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]