Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.
Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
21–30 of 337 posts
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#22Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.
What kind of alternative would you like to see? How do you propose to evaluate if it's preferable to censorship?
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? The US has been very aggressive about shutting down websites that spread Al-Qaeda and ISIS propaganda on most websites. ISIS basically caught everyone with their pants down spreading their stuff on social media, but once people started noticing it, it was purged rapidly. It's not my view, but you could make the argument than the original sin was censoring Al-Qaeda content post-9/11. Obviously, nobody complained.…
> "Huh? The US has been very aggressive about shutting down websites that spread Al-Qaeda and ISIS propaganda on most websites" You mean like archive.org? That's the website I've seen hosting all the ISIS shit.
True, there's a few other "ISIS archives" that are used largely by intelligence analysts, journalists, historians, and academics for study. But I don't think NZ is saying "Hey journalists and academics, don't study a dump of 8chan!"
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#24The US once again a laggard. Unfortunate but not surprising given the current tenants of the WH.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#25Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.
What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#26Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#27This is a very hard problem that YouTube and Facebook made for themselves by becoming the world’s largest advertising platforms. They depend on engagement for ad revenue, they designed world-class algorithms to promote this engagement, and it turned out that extremist content happens to be very engaging.
And so the problem is, building an algorithm that blindly promotes whatever keeps users on the site, for all its complexity, is a far more tractable problem compared to building a system that can avoid promoting content that promotes violence. In the meantime, they throw armies of people at the problem, to moderate content and respond to user reports, but it’s a losing battle.
They had the technology to create a monster, but don’t have the technology to stop it.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#28The approach seems fairly reasonable, it sounds like it's limited to explicitly violent extremist content, and it's being done using pension funds of various governments in a activist investment manner to try to bring about changes
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#29This is horrifying
Why? I'm honestly surprised by the brevity of your comment and by how strong your opinion apparently is in one direction.