111–120 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>far right this >far right that >*crickets* far left *crickets* Man I am glad years ago I watched Yuri Bezmenov's interview with G. Edward Griffin.
> Man I am glad years ago I watched Yuri Bezmenov's interview with G. Edward Griffin. Do tell. Content? Main ideas? A link? Anything?
/watch?v=s2b-I0Yqisc
/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk
No intention of protecting adults?
As an adult, I do not want to be "protected". I can decide for myself if I like the algorithm or product/service and choose not to use it if I don't like it.
Every single person living in modern society is "protectected":
- You're protected from people deciding which side of the street to drive on
- You're protected from a bank who tells you the money you depisited is "all belong to us"
- even a "market" can't exist without "protection"
Once every person has their own army of ML engineers and psychos at their disposal, then there is an oportunity for personal choice in anti-social media.
Or much simpler, the anti-social corps can be required to allow each user to configure their own feed algorithm. This would be a useful "protection".
The negative consequences of not having _any_ "protection" in anti-social networks are clear across society.
These are analagous to the damage done in the US by lack of gun protection. Guns are now the leading cause of childhood death in the US. Combine guns and 4chan/Discord and you get the rash of idiots shooting up the populace and then themseelves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an adult, I do not want to be "protected". I can decide for myself if I like the algorithm or product/service and choose not to use it if I don't like it.
The problem is in modern societies the society is footing the bill for those who choose, let's say, unwisely. Why should my mandatory social and medical insurance taxes go fix issues created by such wrong choices? Should the society not cover them? E.g. smokers with lung cancer should pay out of pocket? Or should society try to minimize wrongdoing instead?
I would agree with this, in the sense that the people who institute predatory algorithmic human interfaces are the ones who chose "unwisely".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why should I have to do that Because you're the parent? Yeah you can't monitor 100% of the time but like.. moderating your child's experiences is kind of part of the job isn't it? Edit: I'm not saying the tech companies have no responsibility at all here, but surely the parent is the final responsibility in these matters? When I was a kid if I went over to a kid's house and their parents let us watch R rated movies…
> Yeah you can't monitor 100% of the time but like.. moderating your child's experiences is kind of part of the job isn't it? Is the subtext here "don't have children if you can't do the job"? If it is, then it's valid to discuss the difficulty of predicting what exactly the job of parent involves when it can drastically change due to technology and social norms over the interval of 5-10-15 years between making the d…
I was going more for "you made the choice to have a kid. You have the job whether you want it or not, so you better step up and do it"
But I suppose the corollary of that is what you said. I don't think it's very valuable to say that to someone who already made that choice though
Anyways, like I said, I don't think Tech companies have zero responsibility here, but the buck stops at the parents, period
This generations parents should not be trusting algorithms not to show their kids bad content any more than 90s parents trusted the teenagers at the movie rental place not to rent children R rated VHS tapes
Edit: Television was a highly regulated and curated feed of media, maybe parents got a bit too comfortable letting their children sit in front of that without concern. But treating on-demand internet content like Television is a mistake
And expecting "the algorithm" to deliver a similarly highly regulated and curated feed is also a mistake
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a really interesting idea. I was just wondering how any of this could be prevented in a way that preserves user choice.
While there's some complexity in the details of how you'd implement the protocol and avoid replay "attacks", there are potentially ways to use Chaumian blind signatures so that an age verifying authority can (blindly) sign a token you present after verifying your age (through some means that likely won't be anonymous), in an unlinkable way As an overly simple thought experiment, you could generate a random ed25519 ep…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah you can't monitor 100% of the time but like.. moderating your child's experiences is kind of part of the job isn't it? Is the subtext here "don't have children if you can't do the job"? If it is, then it's valid to discuss the difficulty of predicting what exactly the job of parent involves when it can drastically change due to technology and social norms over the interval of 5-10-15 years between making the d…
> Is the subtext here "don't have children if you can't do the job I was going more for "you made the choice to have a kid. You have the job whether you want it or not, so you better step up and do it" But I suppose the corollary of that is what you said. I don't think it's very valuable to say that to someone who already made that choice though Anyways, like I said, I don't think Tech companies have zero responsibil…
People love these proposals until they read the details and think of the consequences. Anything that requires "robust age-checks" means that everyone using the site must go through an ID check and validation process. No more viewing anything without first logging in via your ID-checked account > 1. Carry out robust age-checks to stop children accessing harmful content > Our draft Codes expect much greater use of high…
Whereas if their claims are true, and they do know the age of their website users, then these so-called "tech" companies can solve this problem without needing to do age verfication. By not targeting people in certain age brackets with certain content, they can stop the politicians from proposing legislation that requires age verification. But they refuse to do so.
Interesting.
It's quite obvious that Twitter/Google/Facebook/whoever do not have algorithms that scale where they can genuinely curate their content. Seems that obvious since Google bought YouTube. Isn't it quite obvious that it's never been their prerogative. Nor protecting copyright.
And it shouldn't be their prerogative! If we're going to randomly throw blame around, then why not throw it on the ISP too? They're the ones ultimately serving the content. But I don't think anybody wants to open up that can of worms.
ISPs don't know what content they're serving up other than what host it's coming from 99% of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it possible that perhaps people just have differing views on Russia and great power competition than you do? I find the Russia influence story overstated
Sometimes I feel like there's some kind of gaslighting operation going on to make people forget about how much western Europe was in favor of things like NordStream (2). Russia definitely wasn't always the Boogeyman people now seem to claim. A lot of people had to be ok with Russia for things like NordStream to happen.
And Russia paid a lot of people to think that way, either directly (Schröder) or with extremely cheap gas.