5 ms·

For what definition of extremism? Anyone who encrypts?

arkona 9y ago
We're talking about the UK, so probably "hate speech" aka wrongthink
hardlianotion 9y ago
I think they are concerned by lack of effective moderation, and by the inability of these companies to know their customer
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Knowing Theresa May it's probably a lot to do with Facebook's refusal to hand over WhatsApp end-to-end encrypted chat logs. She hates encryption.
- blitmap 9y ago
  At the scale of Google and Facebook, I'm not sure it's possible to individually "know" their customer.
  - gaius 9y ago
    It’s possible for retail banks with tens of millions of customers to KYC, I’m sure it’s not an insurmountable problem
    - jstanley 9y ago
      It's surely possible, but would it be a good thing? When I first starting posting things online, the general advice was "don't use your real name", "don't say anything that will reveal where you live", etc. Now we're not only using our real names but advocating for identity verification of all commenters? How did this go so wrong so fast?
      - tcd 9y ago
        Facebook made the transition plausible; a formal social network, then slowly, the creep began, where it's now acceptable to use your real name online. I still heed the advice of the 90's: NEVER use your real name. We still have that choice thankfully.
        LV-426 9y ago
        > I still heed the advice of the 90's: NEVER use your real name. Where was this advice given? In my experience, people online in the 1990s routinely used their real names, and emails (in the late 90s obfuscated or removed due to spam), on the primary social-network at that time (Usenet), and people still do to this day.
    - mindslight 9y ago
      I can't not respond to "KYC" being thrown around as if it's a legitimate concept. It's a whitewash term for fascist [0] surveillance. [0] The literal merging of the state and corporations to achieve a level of totalitarianism that would be hard for either to achieve on its own.
  - duality 9y ago
    If they did, people may not like that very much either.
  - juicyfroot 9y ago
    And yet more money gets laundered toward terrorism by the banks themselves than just individuals. See HSBC. When 7B was laundered toward terrorist orgs, the US justice system did not do anything, despite finding them guilty. The reasoning was that it would shake confidence in banks. This has nothing to do with combating extremism or terrorism, for there have been numerous counts of the governments having the opportunity to shutdown a large portion of global terror and instead decided it would be bad to prevent it due to political and economic reasons. This is about governments and banks preparing for the inevitable collapse that is coming due to loose fiscal policy, inflating the currency to fund unjust wars. Western nations have become Marxist/Communist with "equality rights talk" for all and at the sametime importing millions of Muslim immigrants wholesale (who 80%+ vote Democrat)
- blitmap 9y ago
  I wanted to offer another reply: I think it's dangerous to engineer for moderating against terrorism/extremism. Surely there are things Google and Facebook could do but if it were me I would not want to. There are automated ways to look for extremism, but to do it ~well~ it would certainly require a human to rule out false-positives. At that point Facebook and Google become an extension of law enforcement, and if something is not caught it then becomes a liability to have involvement in the first place. No sane person wants to see anyone get hurt, but is the gov paying for assistance from Facebook/Google? They can't just put engineering hours toward something for the Greater Good (tm). Lets create a task force within Google to assist law enforcement for the 200+ countries "fighting extremism". The gov wants what it wants without considering the harm to civil liberties of its citizens or what risk it might be exposing corporations to. It all feels like manipulation.

We're talking about the UK, so probably "hate speech" aka wrongthink

I think they are concerned by lack of effective moderation, and by the inability of these companies to know their customer

crdoconnor 9y ago
Knowing Theresa May it's probably a lot to do with Facebook's refusal to hand over WhatsApp end-to-end encrypted chat logs. She hates encryption.
blitmap 9y ago
At the scale of Google and Facebook, I'm not sure it's possible to individually "know" their customer.
- gaius 9y ago
  It’s possible for retail banks with tens of millions of customers to KYC, I’m sure it’s not an insurmountable problem
  - jstanley 9y ago
    It's surely possible, but would it be a good thing? When I first starting posting things online, the general advice was "don't use your real name", "don't say anything that will reveal where you live", etc. Now we're not only using our real names but advocating for identity verification of all commenters? How did this go so wrong so fast?
    - tcd 9y ago
      Facebook made the transition plausible; a formal social network, then slowly, the creep began, where it's now acceptable to use your real name online. I still heed the advice of the 90's: NEVER use your real name. We still have that choice thankfully.
      - LV-426 9y ago
        > I still heed the advice of the 90's: NEVER use your real name. Where was this advice given? In my experience, people online in the 1990s routinely used their real names, and emails (in the late 90s obfuscated or removed due to spam), on the primary social-network at that time (Usenet), and people still do to this day.
  - mindslight 9y ago
    I can't not respond to "KYC" being thrown around as if it's a legitimate concept. It's a whitewash term for fascist [0] surveillance. [0] The literal merging of the state and corporations to achieve a level of totalitarianism that would be hard for either to achieve on its own.
- duality 9y ago
  If they did, people may not like that very much either.
- juicyfroot 9y ago
  And yet more money gets laundered toward terrorism by the banks themselves than just individuals. See HSBC. When 7B was laundered toward terrorist orgs, the US justice system did not do anything, despite finding them guilty. The reasoning was that it would shake confidence in banks. This has nothing to do with combating extremism or terrorism, for there have been numerous counts of the governments having the opportunity to shutdown a large portion of global terror and instead decided it would be bad to prevent it due to political and economic reasons. This is about governments and banks preparing for the inevitable collapse that is coming due to loose fiscal policy, inflating the currency to fund unjust wars. Western nations have become Marxist/Communist with "equality rights talk" for all and at the sametime importing millions of Muslim immigrants wholesale (who 80%+ vote Democrat)
blitmap 9y ago
I wanted to offer another reply: I think it's dangerous to engineer for moderating against terrorism/extremism. Surely there are things Google and Facebook could do but if it were me I would not want to. There are automated ways to look for extremism, but to do it ~well~ it would certainly require a human to rule out false-positives. At that point Facebook and Google become an extension of law enforcement, and if something is not caught it then becomes a liability to have involvement in the first place. No sane person wants to see anyone get hurt, but is the gov paying for assistance from Facebook/Google? They can't just put engineering hours toward something for the Greater Good (tm). Lets create a task force within Google to assist law enforcement for the 200+ countries "fighting extremism". The gov wants what it wants without considering the harm to civil liberties of its citizens or what risk it might be exposing corporations to. It all feels like manipulation.