221–230 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are making a straw man argument by assuming that GP claims they can infer individual-level attributes from telemetry while all they claim is to infer population-level attributes.
That is far, far worse. Let’s make sweeping generalizations about the stupidity of all ________ people. Fill in the blank on your favorite enemy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The promotion of false things is very profitable; by contrast, true things are far less engaging. Worse, it is more expensive to dispel a mistruth than it is to create and spread misinformation. How do we address this systems design challenge without censorship?
James Madison figured it was better to leave a few “noxious branches to their luxuriant growth” than to risk “[injuring] the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits.” What makes you think now, 250 years into the most prosperous society in human history, is the right time to revisit this position?
Your appeal to authority could also be applied to suffrage or the abolishment of slavery. "What makes you think that now, xxx years into the most propsperous society in human history, is the right time to revisit the institution of slavery"? Times change.
That said, there's nothing in particular to stop a political party in the US from being completely anti democratic and bringing down the entire system of both government, elections and the constitution. It just hasn't really started happening since the civil war until now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's frustrating that the discussion around technology's effects on society is still stuck between the extremes of: It is not just tech. It is pretty much everything else on the internet and media. No one is telling me the pros and cons anymore. After I read the pros I have to go and dig up my own list of cons or vice versa. No one is finishing the sentence with "having said that" and round off with some counter arg…
| "The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices." Its mind boggling how much of that show is still relevant today.
Facebook at least claims to be a leader in scanning for and detecting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their platform. As a result of their diligence and size Facebook reports a lot ~90+% of all CSAM reports[1]. That fact suggests that Facebook really is better than most when it comes to detecting CSAM because there is nothing inherent to Facebook that would make it a more appealing platform for CSAM than pornog…
FB's move to e2e encryption explicitly discusses how they still will have reporting of content so users can report CSAM and send the plaintext back to FB. Your framing of their motives here is both cynical and wrong. Novel CSAM gets caught primarily because of users reporting it - not because of outside detection (with known stuff there are some digital fingerprinting ways to block content). They already operate What…
It's good to give users the options to report such materials. As I mentioned though, the majority of CSAM detection is done by automated systems. I might guess that if two pedophiles are trading CSAM via Facebook messenger they will be both be unlikely to report the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am dismissive. Because the opposing viewpoint is believing literal lies . Of course I will dismiss that. Everyone should.
Labels polarise. Criticise the behaviours while allowing the perpetrator wiggle room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is absolutely zero good-faith use of the internet that can result in you getting irreversibly banned by a significant number of domain registrars, therefore this example is completely unrelated to the original quote How is it unrelated? A noxious branch is exactly something that many or most people would consider abhorrent and perceive as not in good faith. There will always be some moral veil put forth by ce…
> How is it unrelated? A noxious branch is exactly something that many or most people would consider abhorrent and perceive as not in good faith. Because that quote fundamentally discusses cases where pruning said noxious branch is a risk to non-noxious branches. Sometimes you can just prune a noxious branch and that's that.
This quote is from the The Report of 1800 [1], where he goes on to say:
> Had “Sedition acts,” forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced against the press; might not the United States have been languishing at this day, under the infirmities of a sickly confederation? Might they not possibly be miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke?
He’s crediting the formation of the United States to speech that was “noxious” to either the British parliament or the Confederate states in power at the time. This noxious speech was absolutely a risk to the extent that sedition acts were being threatened. He’s advocating freedom of the press even when their speech may excite hatred.
[1] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-020...
Notice how everybody seems to have accepted that non-mainstream positions, sources, and interest-groups must be banned, and now they're simply arguing about who should be doing it and how? This is not OK.
The promotion of false things is very profitable; by contrast, true things are far less engaging. Worse, it is more expensive to dispel a mistruth than it is to create and spread misinformation. How do we address this systems design challenge without censorship?
There is not one channel I am part of that does not constantly post contradicting information and yet the same people sit there to agree.
The admins only care about their herbal affiliate links, they rarely engage in discussions.
What I am saying is, it's the people that are to blame.
No one who is willing or able to do their own research, or who does not have some kind of brain damage hindering them should be very well able to fact check and realize what these groups actually are.
Facebook at least claims to be a leader in scanning for and detecting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their platform. As a result of their diligence and size Facebook reports a lot ~90+% of all CSAM reports[1]. That fact suggests that Facebook really is better than most when it comes to detecting CSAM because there is nothing inherent to Facebook that would make it a more appealing platform for CSAM than pornog…
Only a year or so later people here started to use it as social network and I was confused.
Not saying it still is that way, but the way how Facebook works (closed groups where you have to ask for access) and censorship still is slow and uneffective I am sure it is still a preferable platform.
What is also interesting is the motivation of the people wanting to use CrowdTangle, etc to see the list of top posts. My guess, is that it less about learning what is the top post, but more about using that information as a way to try to pressure Facebook to censor content they don't like.
> ...but more about using that information as a way to try to pressure Facebook to censor content they don't like. That's far too simplistic of a take. Facebook and social media amplifying partisan shit-stirrers and misinformation over more sober voices should be seen as a serious issue, regardless of your ideological commitments.
Yet we don't need to censor her, people can decide themself how much they read into this.
The idea to mass censor mentally challenged people likely only increases their hate and gives them confirmation for their believes and even worse hides them from possible help.
It's not the missinformation that is the issue IMO but the people who just follow it without fact checking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was worse?
Even if by some crazy implausibility it was the "greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War", that's like saying, "Man, I just got a paper cut and that is sure the worst injury I've had since that accident where I was paralyzed from the waist down"
And are you kidding me? What if the mob had caught AOC or Pelosi? That would have turned from a "paper cut" to a political murder during an insurrection.