A former sausage maker here. I (used to) design these engagement/recommendation engines for a large corp, did academic research in the field, went to conferences, etc. In general, I wholehearted support the freedom of speech, and if it were any other case, I would agree with the EFF statement here. However, knowing how the sausages are made, I am reluctantly agreeing with the ban, at least for now. People underestima…
> the fact that such a tool is in a foreign country's arsenal is itself a massive danger to America's national security This implies people outside the US should relate the same way to Meta, X, etc. (Which seems fine to me, just pointing it out)
EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
301–310 of 350 posts
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#302Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
what if I was an AI bot programmed under the direction of President Xi? :)
What if you were? One has to assume most of the "people" with whom one interacts on the internet are bots or AIs now, anyway. That's just the nature of our post-truth reality, it doesn't matter. The point is that would have no bearing at all on whether or not you would have the right to free speech if you were a person who chose not to reveal your identity.
but “people” do not have right to free speech, PEOPLE do. if as you said most interactions on the internet are bots they are not covered by the bill of rights :) identity-proofing would take care of that…
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#304> Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally. These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature, increasingly so in the age of LLMs. They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astrot…
The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it. What's next? Should we prevent giving air time to people from 'adversarial' countries at all? Or only allow it when accompanied by a sanctioned commentary to 'correct' any unwanted information? While we're at it, how about 'adversarial' parties within our own country? Why should they be allowed to mislead gullible people?
I'm sorry, but that's a load of baloney on par with "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
Second of all: it's obviously false. There are loads of examples - contemporary as well as older - where people actively peddled "incorrect information" to line their own pockets at the expense of the money/health/wellbeing of others. Having the facts does not repair the damage, nor does it prevent future harm.
But, firstly and more importantly, this framing suggests we should allow for misinformation. We absolutely shouldn't. The public debate isn't resilient to malicious actors. That's what makes misinformation so dangerous and what makes this slogan so hollow. It assumes good faith on all parties. There isn't, so stop advocating for solutions that require that.
In more detail: the public debate is meant for an actual exchange of ideas, thereby enlightening the participants. Anyone who is not interested in that, shouldn't participate. In particular, misinformation should be barred from the public debate. - and those spreading it held to account.
Whether it is knowingly claiming that lead is harmless, that smoking has no negative effects on your health, or anything vaguely political of the last dozen or so years: if you're unaware, it's not your fault yet, but you'll need to stop being ignorant. If you're aware that the information you're spreading is wrong: shame on you! You should be barred from participating in (that line of the) public debate.
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if you were? One has to assume most of the "people" with whom one interacts on the internet are bots or AIs now, anyway. That's just the nature of our post-truth reality, it doesn't matter. The point is that would have no bearing at all on whether or not you would have the right to free speech if you were a person who chose not to reveal your identity.
One has to assume most of the "people" with whom one interacts on the internet are bots or AIs now, anyway. That's just the nature of our post-truth reality, it doesn't matter. but “people” do not have right to free speech, PEOPLE do. if as you said most interactions on the internet are bots they are not covered by the bill of rights :) identity-proofing would take care of that…
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
TikTok is outcompeting its US rivals Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts because their algorithm for choosing which videos to put in front of users is simply superior. Divesting means that they would need to sell that algorithm as well, which is pretty obviously worth a lot more than their US market, which is why they're making this decision.
lol, no it’s not. They’re making this decision because they’re ultimately controlled by the CCP which is not as susceptible to market forces.
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally get what you’re saying. I just don't know how you actually implement this at global scale. I dislike Facebook and have not used it in over a decade, but I do believe they at least used to try and enforce real name policies.
1) I don't have interest in at global scale 2) I'm not discussing the practicality of it
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#308Given that the decision is unanimous just maybe it is in alignment with the constitution. If Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Jackson agree on something, that's some kind of signal.
Signal of belief in an excessively strong state? Clarence Thomas is not actually conservative in the small government sense.
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neil “the President can use SEAL Team 6 to eliminate his political opponents” Gorsuch? He’s not a small government conservative, lol.
Pss, dude, nobody is small government anything. They are just want the regulation to apply in a manner that they are content with.
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#310Given that the decision is unanimous just maybe it is in alignment with the constitution. If Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Jackson agree on something, that's some kind of signal.
> “which would’ve led to the inescapable conclusion … had to be rejected as infringing … free speech” When the EFF sounds about as sane as a sovereign citizen… With friends like these, who needs enemies…