171–180 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People universally believe they are better than their historical counterparts, that they will succeed where history has failed, that this time it will be different . When really all they're doing is carving another notch on fascism's belt.
And the supremely ironic thing in this case is they are calling us the fascists while silencing us with a straight face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a platform that caters to everyone and does not have age restrictions, you would have to sell alcohol to everyone and a subset of everyone is indeed children
That is the case for parents monitoring the internet usage of their young children, not the case for censoring the internet.
This document is showing the hole in that position -- an outright attack (elsagate) aimed at children. A cursory inspection by the parent sees the child watching a harmless Peppa the Pig video, while in fact she's watching snuff.
This is a problem that Google has to address somehow (because that is what is demanded of them), while not censoring things aimed to adults. That's why the conclusion is a call for consistency and openness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.
I don't know, you might want to talk with the woman who was arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions a short while ago.
That said, though I don’t like Dick Cheney, when thd Katrina protester told him to eff off, he took it on the chin like a proper guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kids' click patterns reward more video themes like "Elsa tied up on train tracks kissing Spiderman", so the content industry crams more of that stuff into its new content. To be fair many of the Tex Avery and Tom and Jerry cartoons with which almost everyone grew up with were a lot more wild than that, thankfully they weren’t censored back when we were kids.
How were Tom and Jerry cartoons "wild"? Genuinely curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the contention they cause harm. Taking no side is also similar to this, taking no side in a conflict as long as they are civil requires one to decide what is "civil" in the first place. Are comments about race considered "threats" if one person is of the race targ…
Slander and libel are not illegal, as far as I am aware.
Slide 66 is particularly interesting, and articulates an observation that I've made: > Tech firms are performing a balancing act between two incompatible positions > 100% commit to the American tradition that prioritises free speech for democracy, not civility > 100% commit to the European tradition that favors dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of spe…
It is similarly a very American view that unrestricted freedom of speech is a requirement for a well-functioning internet (well, not completely "unrestricted", but we're not here to argue nuance). Avoiding the obvious debate on which is better, the problem of choice exists in a global medium. Lest it become balkanized, you will have to choose an approach both as a company and as a set of laws. Wrt laws, restrictions are added much more often than they are removed so we should probably err on the side of fewer/limited-scope restrictions. I think most would prefer the greatest common factor of freedoms vs the lowest common denominator of restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’s the point. Arab spring, the chance of positive change around the world because of it, pre Snowden(!). It’s not that things weren’t awful then just people didn’t know what was going on or how things would turn out, so we were all upbeat about the internet.
I disagree. People know how awful their lives are by their well being. The internet offered people the ability to organize and topple their corrupt government, but that doesn't mean that the new people in charge are going to be better.
Still, that moment has passed so people aren’t positive about our connectedness in the same way cause it doesn’t seem to be causing any progressive/democratic changes.
It's interesting that this document calls Arab Spring "the high point in positivity" of the internet. From what I understand, most countries are even worse off now. Libya in particular is still stuck in civil war to this day.
I can understand why Google, as an engine, should err towards neutrality of information, without arbitrating even hideous content. But I've never really understand why social networks can't, or shouldn't, say "This is the type of community we are, and what content we find acceptable."
Because Facebook, unlike say a subreddit, is not a a community formed around a certain topic. There is no 'we' in particular.
The idea that you can only limit a community if it’s dedicated to a specific topic is non-sensical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, you might want to talk with the woman who was arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions a short while ago.
That person has a long list of prior arrests for disturbances [that shows a pattern] The case was also dropped. That said, though I don’t like Dick Cheney, when thd Katrina protester told him to eff off, he took it on the chin like a proper guy.