1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice

The Media [Derail] Thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Solfege, Feb 12, 2019.

  1. Hakairyu

    Hakairyu Second Year

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Istanbul
    Going by that analogy; Facebook is a town square, DLP is a small cafe... Except you know, it’s 19th century Paris and people actually talk and debate in cafes. The point being that anyone can enter a cafe but throwing someone out for shitting on the floor or unintelligibly yelling and cussing at people they disagree with is not censorship, it’s curation. Smaller sites do not need to be uphold the same degree of permissiveness Agayek etc expect from larger ones in order for the proposal to adress the problem. I’m open to the idea that sites which actually have become public forums be forced to bear the responsibilities that come with it, but why should that extend to any site that doesn’t hide its conversations behind a log in screen? “If you don’t like it, leave it” only stops being an argument if leaving the site (ie Facebook) actually is akin to silencing you from the great national/global debates (and you all know by now what I think of the chance of everyday citizens discussing politics producing anything halfway intelligent). If anything, this would just hinder me from running into an interesting back-and-forth on some obscure forum while googling something because any forum worth the hardware it’s stored on would instantly go private.

    Forcing facebook not to arbitrarily ban you also will not stop your boss firing you or malevolent people looking for today’s socially acceptable target from harassing you and trying to get you fired or boycotted. In fact, what really led to this socio-political mess was that Facebook and Twitter got people to really get to know the inner thoughts of acquaintances they just knew they politically disagreed with before. More interaction and debate led to people unfriending and blocking each other and forming their own echo chambers where they can laugh at their strawmen of other people. I’m all for Voltaire-ian free speech, but this is likely to exacerbate this to even more hellish levels.
     
  2. Agayek

    Agayek Prisoner DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,912
    There's certainly room to make distinctions like that, and I agree with you that they should exist. It's just... I haven't been able to formulate a suitably generic legal definition to differentiate the two situations. The best I've been able to come up with is a threshold for daily active users, and that seems both arbitrary and hard to suitably determine.

    I'm sure there's an elegant solution to that problem, I just haven't come up with it yet.
     
  3. Zerg_Lurker

    Zerg_Lurker Order Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    DLPonyville
  4. Agayek

    Agayek Prisoner DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,912
    This is actually pretty similar to what I was thinking, though it's pretty clearly more of a business move than I was considering. Concepts are similar enough though, and it makes me wonder if Zucc is worried about such regulation coming in the future.
     
  5. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,204
    I think this is probably the best thread for this?

    Facebook blocked/deleted 1.5 million instances of the Christchurch mass shooting in the first day after it happened. That's not the important bit. The important bit for this thread is hidden somewhere in the middle:

    Links native to the article.

    In this era where streaming services are ubiquitous and any one of us could probably choose to film ourselves eating dinner should we wish to inflict that horror upon the world, what does this mean for said streaming services in the event of, well, this happening yet again? How could sites like Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, but also previously niche-but-gaining-mainstream-notoriety sites like Twitch work against these videos? Or does the argument start one step before that: should they seek to excise these kinds of videos on their own accord? (Without legislative interference, because it's probably going to be half a decade or more until there's a cadre of politicians who're technologically savvy enough in the right places to push levers for that.)

    And if they feel (or are persuaded to feel) that removal is warranted, how do they minimise the mental health issues on the side of any humans who have to dig through this shit to remove it? There was an 80/20 divide on automatic vs manual, though I expect those numbers to rise in favour of automatic removal. Nevertheless, in scope, we've never seen anything of this scale. The closest parallel I can think of, though perhaps apocryphal, are the stories of cops being affected by sifting through child porn, dealing with gruesome deaths/dismemberment... But those are - to the best of my knowledge - not nearly as common at an individual level as these content moderation stories would seem to be. I'm also not sure how thoroughly researched this has been, so...

    Any thoughts, DLP?
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019 at 8:11 PM
  6. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,876
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    AI is probably the only sensible solution when it comes to the requirements of moderation on enormous platforms like FB/Twitter/YT. Until then, humans will have to play catchup. It's just not realistically possible to moderate all content because of the sheer volume of it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019 at 8:30 PM
  7. Dagro

    Dagro Second Year

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    73
    AI is also not a realistic method in the near future. We have no 'AI tech' capable of that, and won't for quite some time. Really think about what this future AI needs to be able to make decisions on and ask yourself it this is really possible in the way that we would want/allow it to moderate content for us. Not saying this is your position, but there is a lot of 'eh, AI will just fix it soon' mentality around that is just misplaced imho. :)

    This triggers me a bit since it's one of the arguments in the EU for Art. 13. 'Well we don't need uploadfilters, just build some super advanced AI that will do it. You still have a few years time!111" =)
     
  8. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,876
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    Oh, I completely agree. This AI moderator will need to be able to discern context and non-obvious cues in a way humans can to be effective in a way that's required to properly moderate sites like Fb. On DLP, volume of content means that our mods can handle it, but Fb is hopeless--they'd have to hire thousands more of full-time employyes just to review user reports.

    Politicians, unfortunately, think that Content ID is a system capable of discerning such context. They're fucking idiots. And it's endlessly frustrating. And yes, that AI is still a long way away. Because it will essentially need to be of comparable intellingence to humans to do the job that human moderators do.

    The point of my post was that AI is not here yet, and until we have it, there's no really feasible way to moderate all of the online content.
     
Loading...