91–100 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> allegedly progressive companies… If the last ~9 months has demonstrated anything, it's that this was never the case.
Hence "allegedly", but I think it's pretty telling that the people who work at Google and Meta are okay with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they are the best set of laws invented by humans so far for self governance. No kings, no popes, no dictators. As flawed as the current system is, the laws are good even if the people executing them are trash. You can change lots of things much higher up in the system without taking away our God given rights enshrined in the founding documents to fix these kinds of issues.
Hell of an assertion to make when the laws have given rise to an administration that, by virtue of loading the courts, have effectively mimicked the exact sort of power plays one expects from a dictator, up to and including allusions from the leader about not having the next election.
It's easy to spot a problem, but very hard to get the right solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually we don’t put any responsibilities on news publications beforehand. They can be sued after the fact for libel/slander.
Yes, but you can sue the organization itself. However, our laws mean that Google, Meta, etc. are not legally responsible for the content of the ads they run. The creator of the ad is. And it is shockingly easy to construct a legal entity that is unaccountable.
This would prevent foreign ads targeting domestic users, and/or give you an organization to sue domestically. In this case, it's likely that the Israeli govt would work through a US based org, and that in court that case would likely fail for free speech rights. Though a case/org in another nation might not hold up under that nation's laws.
At this point, whoever opposes big tech regulation is in favor of these kinds of abuses happening. Here in Brazil there is a big discussion around this regulation but for other reasons, like the social media algorithms pushing child abuse content to potential pedophiles. The criticism against these regulations are all valid and need to be discussed, because we also don't want to create these mechanisms at the governm…
There's something weird about this complaint, isn't there? I mean, it's horrifying if social media algorithms are pushing child abuse content to anyone, but so far as I can see it isn't worse if the people they're showing it to are paedophiles. Maybe it's even a bit less bad since they're less likely to be distressed by it.
I think there's something deformed about a lot of the moral discourse around this stuff -- as if what matters is making sure that Those Awful People don't get anything they want rather than making sure bad things don't happen. (Far and away the most important bad thing associated with child abuse is the actual child abuse but somehow that's not where everyone's attention goes.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? I truly believe I have no moral obligation to any of these entities and I see them as amoral organizations _at best_ who can't possibly reciprocate
Can you tell me the moral difference between that and saying that you don't believe you have a moral obligation to Porsche dealerships?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> allegedly progressive companies… If the last ~9 months has demonstrated anything, it's that this was never the case.
Hence "allegedly", but I think it's pretty telling that the people who work at Google and Meta are okay with this.
> Google did not pro-actively vet the truth of Israeli government claims It is really scary that people are pushing for Google and Meta to be the arbiter of truth. I don't think people realize what they are asking for. Western civilizations have a tradition of liberal free speech, and allowing the courts to sort out the specifics of what speech causes harm to what parties (libel, etc). There are already laws on the b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is a stawman designed to misdirect the discussion. How about we keep discussing regulation in the context of ad abuse? I can't see how my comment is a "strawman" in any meaningful sense. >A valid criticism would be an implied false dichotomy in my original comment That's exactly my point. Adopting a "you're either with us or against us" attitude is totally toxic, and shouldn't be accepted just because it's for…
So, what's the the right form of regulation to address this? Are you against regulation? Or are you here just to discuss aesthetics?
I don't know, but the ones I've seen so far do not interest me.
>Are you against regulation?
I'm against bad regulation, yes.
>Or are you here just to discuss aesthetics?
If you think objections to "you're either with us or against us" and "we have to do something" attitudes are merely objections over "aesthetics", then yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what's the the right form of regulation to address this? Are you against regulation? Or are you here just to discuss aesthetics?
>So, what's the the right form of regulation to address this? I don't know, but the ones I've seen so far do not interest me. >Are you against regulation? I'm against bad regulation, yes. >Or are you here just to discuss aesthetics? If you think objections to "you're either with us or against us" and "we have to do something " attitudes are merely objections over "aesthetics", then yes.
That's... Good I guess? I mean, who would be in favor of bad regulation?
Anywho, I've laid out what I think in this comment[1], see if it interests you.
This makes me wonder why people put up with targeted content whatsoever. I actually have a friend who works in game development, and he has a real chip on his should regarding the current attitude that the discoverable customer base has. For instance, he sees a lot of people who think developers are pushing things down people's throats, are making games bad or annoying on purpose just so that users get frustrated, et…
> My personal theory is that people broadly are becoming very thick skinned with regard to content being pushed on them You mean thin-skinned?