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
  2. Q4 2019 Story Competition is kicking off!

    Prompt:
    Foreign Magical Regions (Setting outside of Britain)
    Get writing Folks!
    Dismiss Notice

The Media [Derail] Thread

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

  1. Hakairyu

    Hakairyu Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Messages:
    112
    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 Half-Blood Prince DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,512
    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:
    889
    Location:
    DLPonyville
  4. Agayek

    Agayek Half-Blood Prince DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,512
    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:
    2,755
    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
  6. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    262
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826+3348
    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
  7. Dagro

    Dagro Third Year

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    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:
    262
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826+3348
    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.
     
  9. Solfege

    Solfege Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Still stewing over thoughts on platform-era asset-, labor-, and regulatorily-light [isn't tech wonderful] economy, but have at it:

    Screenshot 2019-04-17 02.09.33.png Screenshot 2019-04-17 02.09.59.png
     
  10. amek

    amek Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    What book is this from?


    Edit: can't spell book for some reason
     
  11. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    262
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826+3348
    http://archive.is/TRUe3

    Joe Bernstein, most recently in the news for a hitpiece on a 14 year old girl, has apologized for a 2014 tweet "Kill a straight white man on your way to work tomorrow", which he has refused to do (apologize) until now, because he thought it was a self-evident joke. Which it was. He should've realized that people were only using it as a cudgel against him because he has used obvious jokes as a cudgel against other people and seems unable to see his hypocrisy and the double standard he applies for himself.

    He also hasn't learned that apologizing to the outrage crowd never works, no matter who it is that comprises the crowd.

    I wish these people could see beyond the end of their nose instead of only saying "but it's a joke" when someone uses their words against them.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  12. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    262
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826+3348
    Kevin Poulsen, a writer for The Daily Beast, wrote an article doxxing a private citizen for posting drunk Nancy Pelosi memes.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1134968888116932609

    I won't link the article directly, but it reveals the guy's name, work history, past criminal record, and quotes an ex girlfriend. The ex girlfriend is not named in the article. Poulsen himself is a convicted felon. His Wikipedia page.

    What an unbelievable piece of shit.
     
  13. Stenstyren

    Stenstyren Professor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    453
    Poulsen seems to have taken it way to far, but are you still a private citizen if you are posting claiming to be a legitimate news organisation?
    A certain amount of retaliation has to be expected if you are doctoring videos and spreading them claiming they are real. Now, I think he went a bit far here but I do not think it's wrong to out the name of someone who has run several different false news organisations. How else are we to recognize if he does it again?
     
  14. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    262
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826+3348
    @Stenstyren

    No. There is no way to justify what Paulsen did here, and engaging in nuanced discussion does nothing for the doxxed guy now.
     
  15. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Minister of Magic DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,253
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you don't want to become part of the narrative and conversation in the public view, maybe don't put yourself out there as a news source providing false information to serve your pet political cause. I have no sympathy, and while "doxxing" is considered bad form in pseudonymous conversations among equals, it's not some iron-clad rule by which we all must follow. Chucklefuck had his whole name in his paypal link on said videos and articles, so it's nothing that wasn't available already. The rest of it is just context.
     
  16. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    262
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826+3348
    @Sauce Bauss

    "Info was already available" is, I'm sure, a wonderful legal argument, but it holds much less weight in practical terms. I'm absolutely certain that both of us have personally identifying info somewhere out there already available on the Internet, but if I published yours in a news article and announced it on Twitter, you'd be justfiably pissed at me.

    And people are much too quick to dismiss context these days, especially online, as if context is irrelevant window dressing, when context is so often the whole point.
     
  17. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Minister of Magic DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,253
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I think we crossed streams here. I was saying that the rest of the article is context.

    If you wade into public waters, don't complain when you meet a warm section in the pool. That's the price you pay for having a platform to speak to the public.
     
  18. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    262
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826+3348
    That's true, and does nothing to make what Paulsen did less reprehensible. I absolutely want to have the right to call anyone a cunt. It doesn't mean I'll do it at every opportunity. This article wasn't just informative, it was vindictive.
     
  19. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    517
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
  20. Solfege

    Solfege Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Yes, but much easier to protest vote when you know the controlling shares are the only ones that matter.

    In non-symbolic news, with antitrust squarely in Congress's sights, we won't be seeing any more Amazon/Google/Facebook entries to industries "waiting to be disrupted."
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019
Loading...