3 ms·

I do not sympathize with Google, but Boingboing looks ridiculous here. Its contributors have been advocating for modern pro-censorship movement, which pushes fo

I do not sympathize with Google, but Boingboing looks ridiculous here. Its contributors have been advocating for modern pro-censorship movement, which pushes for filtering of content because of a ever growing list of allegedly offensive things, and signs. But wait a minute, they aren't happy with the results. What could go wrong. Now, as AI doesn't seem to cope with their demands, what will they want as a solution? Politically correct humans reviewing every video?

pdkl95 7y ago
> what will they want as a solution? The same thing we use when enforcing the rules of any infrastructure: publicly accountable and transparent due process. These problems will continue until big tech implements a proper rule of law[1]. They will continue[2] to be responsible for these difficult decisions as long as their platforms idea of justice is the rule of man[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [2] https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-AR https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-A... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  Not sure I clearly see your position. If platforms should abstain from censorship unless proper legal process forces them to do so is what you mean - I would not argue. But it's not the point of my comment. Pro-cesorship movement never advocated for proper due process, they want quick, peferably automatical "deplatforming".
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > proper legal process forces them to do so That's not what I'm talking about. The platforms need to create a new form of "legal process" where these issues are defined and adjudicated in an open process. Google et al are de facto a new layer of government, and they need to act like it. Currently, they are trying to act like a "(mostly) benevolent dictatorship" and finding out that the hard way that you can't actually please everyone. The proper way to handle calls for censorship/banning/etc is to tell them to take their grievances to the formalized judicial process and/or argue for changing that process in the formalized, open "legislature". For a much better explanation, I highly recommend watching Raph Koster's talk (my previous [2]). Even though it was at GDC and initially talks about VR and MMOs, the talk is not actually about games; it's about the ethical and social responsibilities of creating social spaces, and the may ways we've tried to solve their problems in the past.
leereeves 7y ago
It seems like the defenders of censorship always imagine the censors will block only the things they don't like, but it rarely works out that way. Anyone who advocates censorship needs to realize that some things they don't want censored will be, through imperfection, abuse of power, or simple difference of opinion.

pdkl95 7y ago

> what will they want as a solution? The same thing we use when enforcing the rules of any infrastructure: publicly accountable and transparent due process. These problems will continue until big tech implements a proper rule of law[1]. They will continue[2] to be responsible for these difficult decisions as long as their platforms idea of justice is the rule of man[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [2] https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-AR https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-A... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man

brokenkebab 7y ago
Not sure I clearly see your position. If platforms should abstain from censorship unless proper legal process forces them to do so is what you mean - I would not argue. But it's not the point of my comment. Pro-cesorship movement never advocated for proper due process, they want quick, peferably automatical "deplatforming".
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > proper legal process forces them to do so That's not what I'm talking about. The platforms need to create a new form of "legal process" where these issues are defined and adjudicated in an open process. Google et al are de facto a new layer of government, and they need to act like it. Currently, they are trying to act like a "(mostly) benevolent dictatorship" and finding out that the hard way that you can't actually please everyone. The proper way to handle calls for censorship/banning/etc is to tell them to take their grievances to the formalized judicial process and/or argue for changing that process in the formalized, open "legislature". For a much better explanation, I highly recommend watching Raph Koster's talk (my previous [2]). Even though it was at GDC and initially talks about VR and MMOs, the talk is not actually about games; it's about the ethical and social responsibilities of creating social spaces, and the may ways we've tried to solve their problems in the past.

leereeves 7y ago

It seems like the defenders of censorship always imagine the censors will block only the things they don't like, but it rarely works out that way. Anyone who advocates censorship needs to realize that some things they don't want censored will be, through imperfection, abuse of power, or simple difference of opinion.