View previous topic | View next topic

Internet privacy?

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Prof Wind Up Merchant
1379090.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:56 am Reply with quote

Right here goes a rant of epic proportions.

Facebook which also owns WhatsApp and Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Tik Tok and LinkedIn, wake the fuck up.

All these footballers, actors and other public figures that are receiving abuse on your platforms, you are fucking not doing enough to fix this.

You are not policing your platforms and you are having to react to all this news about online hate. Footballers are an example. Why has it got to a stage where clubs are boycotting platforms for one week.

It should not have gotten to this stage if you were proactive enough to scour posts, before they are posted for offensive terms and block them being posted.

What the fuck are your web and app developers doing about it. They can code algorithms to search out offensive content and block it.

For example I should not be able to post the following about anyone here.

"Person X is a queer faggot and is a danger to society"

In this example an algorithm needs to running in the background to analyse the post and identify the words "Queer" and "Faggot". If I am about to post it, a warning should pop up saying that this message cannot be posted on this website as it contravenes laws on preventing the spread of online hate (Something along those lines).

This is just an illustration.

People may argue about freedom of expression but something needs to be done to stop this from being viewed on online platforms. This is a form of censorship but it has become necessary.

Only problem with this is that it does not prevent some from saying that offensive comment out in a public area but that is another discussion.

The discussion here is censoring online material.

Get for fucking finger out social media or we will start sending online hateful messages about you and withdraw from you if you are not careful. We don't care about your profits.

I have said my piece.


Last edited by Prof Wind Up Merchant on Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:13 am; edited 1 time in total

 
barbados
1379093.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:52 am Reply with quote

Iím not entirely sure removing the posts is the best course of action though.
When you see that racist (for example) comments about nameless footballer of colour who has had a terrible game (missed a penalty in the last minute / not kept up with the person he is supposed to be marking leading to a match winning goal) there is a small part that would suggest the ďabuseĒ (which is not justified at all, but happens) is about the game, and the player just so happens to be non white.
If you leave the post there, the real fans will soon sort it out.

 
crissdee
1379094.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:55 am Reply with quote

I totally get your point PWUM, but I don't think it is as simple as that. To take your own example;

Prof Wind Up Merchant wrote:
For example I should not be able to post the following about anyone here.

"Person X is a queer faggot and is a danger to society"

In this example an algorithm needs to running in the background to analyse the post and identify the words "Queer" and "Faggot". If I am about to post it, a warning should pop up saying that this message cannot be posted on this website as it contravenes laws on preventing the spread of online hate.


Suppose I wanted to describe a rather unusual meal in a restaurant, and said;

"A queer thing happened last night, I ordered a serving of faggots, and when it arrived, there was only a single faggot on my plate."

Or, suppose I phrased your example like this;

"Person X is a qu**r fa**ot, and is a danger to society"

One of those posts (the harmless one) would be blocked, the offensive one would get through. The trouble with censoring language is that context is all. At the moment at least, only the human mind can identify context (unless there is AI software of which I am unaware) It is obviously impractical to have enough people employed to keep up with every strand of social media, so it must be automated. If there is such nuanced software, then of course it should be used, but I am less than convinced that it is available.

 
Alexander Howard
1379105.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:27 am Reply with quote

The political argument that has broken out is over free speech. Free expression is important, and Twitface should not silence me - if they want to silence other people, of course, that is another matter.

One reaction has been 'let's create an entirely free speech platform', which I think is what Parler is meant to be about. That is one legitimate response. Anyone should be able to set their own platform up and leave subscribers to write what they want, which would necessarily include personal and group abuse, libel, conspiracy theories, aiding and abetting crime, race-hatred, class-hatred, socialism, pseudoscience and other vile content.

Maybe some people want that. Short of actual crime and libel, I would not want it limited by law - I just would not want to be on a platform like that any more than I would want to be in a drunken crowd after a dog-fight in a warehouse at Hull docks.

Perhaps the better platform for free speech is counter-intuitively one which positively bars personal abuse, and this includes immoderate demands to ban other people.

Just hand me £2million in start-up capital and I'll get it running.

 
PDR
1379107.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:35 am Reply with quote

Prof Wind Up Merchant wrote:

For example I should not be able to post the following about anyone here.

"Person X is a queer faggot and is a danger to society"


Absolutely not - we abhor tautology.

PDR

 
barbados
1379110.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:58 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:

Perhaps the better platform for free speech is counter-intuitively one which positively bars personal abuse, and this includes immoderate demands to ban other people.

What was it Stephen G Tallantyre said in her biography of Voltaire I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
That about sums it up

 
Alexander Howard
1379112.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:21 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
What was it Stephen G Tallantyre said in her biography of Voltaire I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
That about sums it up


Well done for avoiding the klaxon there! She was indeed the actual originator of that quote, usually found attributed to Voltaire himself.

 
barbados
1379122.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:10 am Reply with quote

Not so much green as Iím cabbage looking ;)

 
Willie
1379123.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:25 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
One reaction has been 'let's create an entirely free speech platform', which I think is what Parler is meant to be about. That is one legitimate response. Anyone should be able to set their own platform up and leave subscribers to write what they want, which would necessarily include personal and group abuse, libel, conspiracy theories, aiding and abetting crime, race-hatred, class-hatred, socialism, pseudoscience and other vile content.


I actually agree with some of what Parler has been doing.

For quite some time (way before the kerfuffle over Trump and his acolytes being banned by Twitter) they have been reporting any violent hate speech directly to the FBI. Right wing groups in the US have been having puppies since they discovered this was happening.

 
barbados
1379128.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:59 am Reply with quote

Itís a tough line to draw isnít it.
Banning doesnít silence, while at the same time not banning legitimises.

 
jaygeemack
1379143.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:42 pm Reply with quote

Ďsocialism... and other vile contentí.

Eh?

 
crissdee
1379145.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:59 pm Reply with quote

Can't really see how the bulk of "conspiracy theories" and "pseudoscience" comes under "vile content either...

 
Alexander Howard
1379151.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:26 pm Reply with quote

Useful for needling some people though. 'Pseudoscience' was thrown in as a challenge: one man's pseudoscience is another's open field of research.

It is not just that it is hard to draw a line - it is that everyone has a different idea of what is improper, and that should be respected.

There are ideas which should by any logical measure be debatable but which some people out there consider must be silenced in case it upsets a consensus, and I would have to be careful listing any because they would upset someone. At the extreme we have Twitter banning users who disagree with a fashionable minority doctrine: some have been banned for suggesting they would address a man as 'he' even when he puts on a dress.

If a private social media company wants to impose a particular doctrine to which all posts must conform, it can do so. Someone else may create a forum with another doctrine, or no doctrines. The problem is when a company has a monopoly, or companies form a cartel imposing their doctrine.

 
Willie
1379159.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:40 pm Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
If a private social media company wants to impose a particular doctrine to which all posts must conform, it can do so. Someone else may create a forum with another doctrine, or no doctrines. The problem is when a company has a monopoly, or companies form a cartel imposing their doctrine.


But are they monopolies or have they formed a cartel?

There are many alternatives to all the major social media companies. The inability of them to make more than a minor inroad into attracting users is not really due to monopolistic practices by the big ones.

There really is no evidence of a cartel imposing a doctrine either. Blocking posts that attempt to spread lies is not really a doctine.

On the other hand they get critisised for both not policing posts on their platforms and for policing posts too much so they really can't win.

 
Alexander Howard
1379162.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:11 pm Reply with quote

Anyone can start a new site, so there is no actual monopoly to be broken. Then again, it looks as if Twitter and Apple have co-ordinated their actions on occasion.

There is one monopoly which needs to be broken, not just in social media terms: the Apple AppStore. Correct me if I am wrong (I don't have any Apple product), but if you want an app to run on an iPhone, it has to be bought through the AppStore, and Apple will remove any product to which they take a dislike If I bought an iPhone, I would say it my my 'phone I can upload any programme I want, not those paying a cut to the company that made the thing.

 

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group