231–236 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean?
I can't message my friends on Snapchat from Instagram, but I can call my friends on T-Mobile and ATT from Verizon. Phone companies shenanigans go back a long way, so there are more than a few lawsuits involved, in order to get to our current state for calling.
A partial distributed solution would be for trusted sites to vouch for a hash of the video file, and the browser to be configured to flag or filter untrusted content. E.g. NYT, the DNC, Pelosi's own site, etc., would flag a hash of a file as valid. Those sites would be aggregated into a web of trust. Users subscribe to nodes of that web, e.g. I trust reporter A, celebrity B, newspaper C, advocacy group D ... and thei…
I wonder if it would have taken FB that long to demote the video if it had depicted Sandberg or Zuckerberg slinging racial slurs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that is the role they have chosen by becoming a non neutral information distributor.
The medium is the message, study the medium and it's effects on how information is distributed. The genie is out of the bottle. Unless you want a 1984 style propaganda you have to accept that media is different from 10 years ago and it'll never be the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like “having their fun” is a bit of a disingenuous means of describing discourse touching billions of people which has resulted in several awful real world situations such as measles outbreaks, discrimination, negative self worth, and even murder around the globe.
I don't really see any relation that would conclude lacking content control as the root cause of these randomly selected issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the platform should be held liable if it causes damage to individuals by spreading false information about them. For example we could start by handing out fines to platforms if they do not remove damaging or false information in timely manner. I don't think the platform needs to go entirely, I just think it needs to get an incentive, financially for starters, if it fails to adhere to standards set by legislat…
In your ideal case, lets say that Facebook identifies some content that it believes is spreading false information about somebody. Should Facebook be allowed to remove it? If no: Facebook is being fined for not taking an action that it is not allowed to take, which I can't imagine you are advocating for. If yes: Facebook is now the arbiter of what information gets to be seen (on Facebook), which you didn't want. A th…
You can avoid cognitive dissonance if you assume you have the "right" perspective on how to bucket content into two groups, acceptable and unacceptable, and that the bucketing made by regulators will be identical to yours, since it's clearly the only objectively correct one. Of course, this is so far from reality if such a thing were to be implemented that it's not worth taking seriously.