Will every internet company have to reinvent their own counter-terrorism tools?
That doesn't sound very efficient to me.
Also, isn't this a task for governments?
Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
111–120 of 187 posts
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#112"Third, we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content. In future these will appear behind an interstitial warning and they will not be monetised, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements. That means these videos will have less engagement and be harder to find. We think this strikes…
Aha, so big US companies are our police now. I share your fear. The "kosher" content would be now defined by some faceless person in NY/SF.
Or more likely a minimum wage drone in a third world country
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#113Лайки Крутятся, мемасы мутятся.
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ignore the specifics of the content I would agree with you. Now, when this expands to other subject areas, then it is a different story for sure.
"Third, we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content...." They go on to say that this type of speech won't be exactly blocked, but basically made harder to find. It's not quite big brother, but I suspect nothing like that happens all at once. "Inflammatory religious" in particular, feels like a pr…
So no DUP videos of parades in NI then
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aha, so big US companies are our police now. I share your fear. The "kosher" content would be now defined by some faceless person in NY/SF.
Or more likely a minimum wage drone in a third world country
Don't worry, once their opinion is enshrined in a neural net somewhere, they'll no longer be in charge. Then it will just be a cold metallic box that will silently, and efficiently judge you.
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#116This is a terrifying step for the internet. These kinds of step lay the groundwork for censorship but fail to consider the impact of these changes in the event that the bad guys come into power or gain influence of these management systems.
As this technology gets more widespread, each nation will have a different set of rules of what people can and can not see. The internet bubbles will get worse.
People are quick to condemn certain states for their censorship, but give a pass for Google easily. Don't get me wrong, in this particular case there are very few who would argue with Google, but not long ago there were discussions about search results bias during the election campaigns for example.
Indeed, if Google thinks they are capable of shaping the narrative, what is stopping them from redirecting people e.g. to Coalition for Better Ads when searching for a content blocker? It is not hard to imaging scenarios when Google and the individuals' incentives are not aligned and that slope is slippery.
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's the chance that these policies apply to both sides equally? I would say there's a very good chance that it will
How do you figure?
Well most of the abuse is from the right, so most of the correct action will be towards the right. It won't be equal in terms of amount of action for a given side, but it will be equal in terms of blocking dodgy content.
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#118This is a terrifying step for the internet. These kinds of step lay the groundwork for censorship but fail to consider the impact of these changes in the event that the bad guys come into power or gain influence of these management systems.
Supporting violence and hate isn't acceptable in any other format, why should the Internet be excluded.
Snail mail letters are the oldest somewhat comparable format. Privacy of your envelope of hate speech is secured by law in most western nations.
However we have recently seen that principle degrade with all kinds of exceptions. It's weird given how little potential islamist terrorism has in the west compared to what communism, republicanism or protestantism had in the past.
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#119I'm rather skeptical when terrorism (or Lovejoy) is invoked as a reason for more censorship, hope it turns out well this time. we are working with Jigsaw to implement the “Redirect Method” more broadly across Europe. This promising approach harnesses the power of targeted online advertising to reach potential Isis recruits, It is not really clear why is Europe specifically targeted.
> It is not really clear why is Europe specifically targeted
If you mean "targeted by attacks" I'm not sure why.
If you mean "targeted with this method" is because most of these kinds of acts in the West happened in Europe and not somewhere else. Also, IIRC, most of the attacks came from people born here, not immigrants, so it wouldn't make much sense to target wannabe attackers directly in the Middle East.
Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you figure?
Well most of the abuse is from the right, so most of the correct action will be towards the right. It won't be equal in terms of amount of action for a given side, but it will be equal in terms of blocking dodgy content.
>Well most of the abuse is from the right, so most of the correct action will be towards the right
That's a hell of an assumption. This subthread succinctly illustrates the problem at hand.