Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

rnz.co.nz

51–60 of 337 posts

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#51

This 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 c…

> They had the technology to create a monster, but don’t have the technology to stop it.

At first I was going to argue that they could stop it and that they did have the "technology" to do so, but the more I thought about it the more I concluded that in the system we have built, they really cannot. Profitable ideas are unstoppable until they are proved less profitable than some other idea, or regulated out of existence. Fiduciary duty enshrines this into law. Sufficient competition ensures that it is the only winning strategy.

Obligatory SSC: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#52
post #21

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.

The bigger problem is how selective is stopping the extremism in many venues. This is really worrying.

Here in Germany it's very popular to talk about, chastise and silence "Nazis" (be it real or assumed), which sort of makes sense knowing Germany's history. From my perspective -- of a Slav whose people were exterminated en masse by real Nazis.

At the same time various, frequently militant, extremists (e.g. anarchists, AntiFas, Islamists) are allowed to speak their mind, openly recruit and even spread calls to violence against their political opponents.

Mind you, Wahhabist groups were literally spreading their message just a few years ago (still in 2017) in front of shopping malls here in Berlin.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#53
post #46
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world. Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism? You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism and yet you'd give up your right to free speech for some remote threat? That kind of thinking is the cause of north korea and nazi germany. Authoritarians always use remote threats to justify t…

That's a pretty silly example. North Korea is North Korea precisely because of the extremism.

North Korea became north korea because of censorship. It is the most censored country in the world. And the point is that there is not "extremism" in north korea because censorship allows only "authoritarianism". That's the world you want to live in?

I agree with you that censorship is extremism and it should be fought against.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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!"

I wouldn't be so sure, following the aftermath of Christchurch my network (AU) and several others have not unblocked the Chan's. I don't believe they are planning to either.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#55
post #40
post #20

This is horrifying

Live streaming murder is horrifying.

I thought that (as an example) the pioneering video recording of the Vietnam war was essentially in shaping the US American public opinion on the war matter. I could be wrong, but it wasn't seen as something horrifying back then.

It's of course the actual murder which is horrifying.

The problem isn't the documentation, but how we as a global society chooses to work with those documents.

I'm not particularly deep into the issue, but I feel there must be something between glorifying it in some engagement-metric heavy filter bubble and making it an agenda to purge whole vaguely defined categories of content from the internet.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#56
post #31
post #21

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.

I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world. Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism? You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism and yet you'd give up your right to free speech for some remote threat? That kind of thinking is the cause of north korea and nazi germany. Authoritarians always use remote threats to justify t…

>You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism...

I know this is pedantic, but you got me curious so I went to check the numbers.

Odds of death in mass shooting (US only): 1 in 11,125

Odds of death by lightning strike (US only): 1 in 161,831

So it seems that it's actually a lot more likely for an American to die in a mass shooting than it is for us to die in lightning strikes.

Edit:

Sorry. The source was the National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, and the Cato Institute.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics...

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#57
post #21

Everyone 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.

> What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.

No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works.

So let's begin with the word itself. "Extremism" is a noun. The root of the word is "extreme."

A dictionary will define "extremism" as "the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

Synonyms:fanaticism, radicalism, zealotry, zeal, fundamentalism, dogmatism, bigotry, militancy, activism;

Now, let us address the article to provide further context:

    Tech company and world leaders have signed an unprecedented Christchurch 
    Call agreement to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.
Here we have a reference to Christchurch, a terrorist event. The common understanding of "extremism," as it relates to political speech, and specifically in relation to the events at Christchurch and the article posted, would understand the shooting of mosques by white supremacists to be an extremist act.

So we can see that in the context of the article, and the call to action mentioned, "extremism" is not vague, nor meaningless, but specifically related to the dissemination of violent and terroristic material and propaganda, as was similarly done in the aforementioned terrorist incident.

Although this is Hacker News, and I know it's futile here to suggest that standing in the way of bigots and extremists is anything but a slippery slope towards an Orwellian dystopian nightmare of fascism and thought-police and boots crushing our heads forever, there is nothing in this article, or the call to action it describes, which would suggest an intent to censor all arbitrary political speech, nor is the meaning of, "extremist" not well defined within.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#58
post #55
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Live streaming murder is horrifying.

I thought that (as an example) the pioneering video recording of the Vietnam war was essentially in shaping the US American public opinion on the war matter. I could be wrong, but it wasn't seen as something horrifying back then. It's of course the actual murder which is horrifying. The problem isn't the documentation, but how we as a global society chooses to work with those documents. I'm not particularly deep into…

In your view journalists doing their jobs and putting all of the information in the proper context versus some nazi doing it for the lulz are exactly equivalent things?

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#59

Utterly nonsensical. You don't need the internet to be radicalized, people have been willing to kill in the name of their convictions for as long as humans have existed. I predict even if somehow every white supremacist were booted off the internet, no lives at all would be saved, as they just don't need the internet to kill people, or to learn to hate. This is purely giving up rights for the sake of security theatre…

You don't accept that the internet has enabled people with obscure and extreme views to better find each other, legitimize each other, spread their views and recruit others to their causes?

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#60
post #42
post #28

The 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

Historically, a combined effort by corporate and government interests to take away your rights was called fascism. But I guess if it is the far left doing it, it's okay.

Not a single one of those signatories is far left. The overwhelming majority are centre right.

And historically, efforts to curb uncritical airtime for violent and dangerous people have been fairly common (albeit not entirely uncontroversial). Neither Ireland nor the UK were ever far left or fascist but RTÉ and the BBC both heavily restricted interviews with loyalist and republican paramilitaries during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Post reply on HN