38 ms·

s/(algorithmic|human) moderation/a rule of law/g This mess will only get worse as long as Google insists on trying to fix unsolved social conflicts unilaterall

by pdkl95 7y ago

s/(algorithmic|human) moderation/a rule of law/g This mess will only get worse as long as Google insists on trying to fix unsolved social conflicts unilaterally. Google made themselves the primary target when they started to make decisions with large social consequences by fiat. They de facto implemented rule of man[1]. The solution is to not be the sole entity with the power to make decisions about unsolved social issues. Relinquish the power to make decisions about what kind of content is "acceptable" by implementing a rule of law managed by some kind of publicly accountable, transparent governance, Google (and anybody else that controls something the public relies upon as infrastructure) has a ch9oice: keep the power to make socially-important decisio9ns and accept the blame and responsibility for those decisions, or abandon that power to make the whole mess someone else's problem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man

tomlockwood 7y ago
> The solution is to not be the sole entity with the power to make decisions about unsolved social issues. Relinquish the power to make decisions about what kind of content is "acceptable" by implementing a rule of law managed by some kind of publicly accountable, transparent governance They started making these decisions, because Capitalism. They're publicly traded. Shareholders demand more profits. Advertising is the vast majority of their Youtube profits. Advertisers are risk averse. No fortune 500 company wants their ad running on white supremacist/violent/sexually explicit content. There is collateral damage, but caring about that only marginally increases profit.
mushufasa 7y ago
All countries already have laws regulating speech to various degrees of freedom. Google's need to comply with these laws is part of the genesis for the moderation (e.g. copyright protection, child pornography). In fact, aggressive government laws for censorship are why Google chooses not to operate in China. The topic at hand is about monetization of ads -- the "acceptability" of the content is determined by the ad buyers. Not some idea of social good -- it's just the market. The problem here is about execution not policy. The plaintiffs argue Google's algorithms are not working as intended, not that their intentions are misguided. Are you suggesting that Google should create additional authority to regulate itself beyond what is legally required and needed for their business? E.g. create some expert panel that can compel Google to censor certain content? That would create more problems than it would solve.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  Google was operating in China just fine even with censorship, they left because China started hacking gmail accounts. Some countries have much more rule of law than others.
  - cromwellian 7y ago
    I think that's an oversimplification of the history. After the email hacking, Google decided to stop censoring in retaliation, and redirected traffic to HK. Eventually, they were blocked, and a few years layer, practically all Google services were blocked. It's not like Gmail was "pulled" from China, the GFW blocks it. Sooner or later, even if Search was still being censored, the other services would probably be blocked, or have unacceptable conditions imposed on them. The amount of effort to make YouTube and Gmail bend to PRC desires I think would have been a bridge too far. Once Xi Jinping took office especially. I mean, I've seen super mild videos on Bilibili, where say a Mainland athlete or contestant loses to a Taiwanese one get removed. YouTube would be overloaded quite quickly by 50 cent army takedown requests.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      YouTube was already blocked when google left China (to say, it was never in China), gmail was never hosted in China and the hacking occurred on servers in Hong Kong. There is some pretty crazy stuff on Chinese video sharing platforms, censorship in China is arbitrary and selective. That alone would make it very difficult for a western company to operate a media company in china.
  - bakuninsbart 7y ago
    https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery-happiest-company-tech/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery... The article is very long, but definetely worth a read. Section III and VII specifically detail some of the things going on with their China business. The Tldr is that a big reason for google to stop their censored search in China was due to internal resistance as well as animosity from Congress.
- 7y ago
np_tedious 7y ago
You can argue about the sincerity of the statement, but Facebook / Zuckerberg appear to be firmly in the latter "someone else's problem" / "we don't want to make these decisions ourselves" camp: https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the... I have not yet observed much progress towards these rules. The few "ministry of truth" style steps that have occurred don't exactly look promising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz
forgottenpass 7y ago
>Google insists on trying to fix unsolved social conflicts unilaterally I wonder what all this paternalism will do to society long term. In the short term we mostly see the people who are agitated by being on the wrong side of popular opinion (or are just caught by hamfisted enforcement), or others who expect levels of protection they're still not getting. But that's just the exceedingly obvious parts. Every social intervention risks unintended consequences, no matter how well intentioned and angelic the goals are. Censorship in TV and movies have irreparably damaged our collective psyche for generations (e.g.: the most obvious and uncontroversial area to say it's warped us are in attitudes around sex). Where does social media censorship go from here? And what effects will it have on the population at large over time?

by pdkl95 7y ago

tomlockwood 7y ago

> The solution is to not be the sole entity with the power to make decisions about unsolved social issues. Relinquish the power to make decisions about what kind of content is "acceptable" by implementing a rule of law managed by some kind of publicly accountable, transparent governance They started making these decisions, because Capitalism. They're publicly traded. Shareholders demand more profits. Advertising is the vast majority of their Youtube profits. Advertisers are risk averse. No fortune 500 company wants their ad running on white supremacist/violent/sexually explicit content. There is collateral damage, but caring about that only marginally increases profit.

mushufasa 7y ago

All countries already have laws regulating speech to various degrees of freedom. Google's need to comply with these laws is part of the genesis for the moderation (e.g. copyright protection, child pornography). In fact, aggressive government laws for censorship are why Google chooses not to operate in China. The topic at hand is about monetization of ads -- the "acceptability" of the content is determined by the ad buyers. Not some idea of social good -- it's just the market. The problem here is about execution not policy. The plaintiffs argue Google's algorithms are not working as intended, not that their intentions are misguided. Are you suggesting that Google should create additional authority to regulate itself beyond what is legally required and needed for their business? E.g. create some expert panel that can compel Google to censor certain content? That would create more problems than it would solve.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
Google was operating in China just fine even with censorship, they left because China started hacking gmail accounts. Some countries have much more rule of law than others.
- cromwellian 7y ago
  I think that's an oversimplification of the history. After the email hacking, Google decided to stop censoring in retaliation, and redirected traffic to HK. Eventually, they were blocked, and a few years layer, practically all Google services were blocked. It's not like Gmail was "pulled" from China, the GFW blocks it. Sooner or later, even if Search was still being censored, the other services would probably be blocked, or have unacceptable conditions imposed on them. The amount of effort to make YouTube and Gmail bend to PRC desires I think would have been a bridge too far. Once Xi Jinping took office especially. I mean, I've seen super mild videos on Bilibili, where say a Mainland athlete or contestant loses to a Taiwanese one get removed. YouTube would be overloaded quite quickly by 50 cent army takedown requests.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    YouTube was already blocked when google left China (to say, it was never in China), gmail was never hosted in China and the hacking occurred on servers in Hong Kong. There is some pretty crazy stuff on Chinese video sharing platforms, censorship in China is arbitrary and selective. That alone would make it very difficult for a western company to operate a media company in china.
- bakuninsbart 7y ago
  https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery-happiest-company-tech/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery... The article is very long, but definetely worth a read. Section III and VII specifically detail some of the things going on with their China business. The Tldr is that a big reason for google to stop their censored search in China was due to internal resistance as well as animosity from Congress.
7y ago

np_tedious 7y ago

You can argue about the sincerity of the statement, but Facebook / Zuckerberg appear to be firmly in the latter "someone else's problem" / "we don't want to make these decisions ourselves" camp: https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the... I have not yet observed much progress towards these rules. The few "ministry of truth" style steps that have occurred don't exactly look promising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz

forgottenpass 7y ago

>Google insists on trying to fix unsolved social conflicts unilaterally I wonder what all this paternalism will do to society long term. In the short term we mostly see the people who are agitated by being on the wrong side of popular opinion (or are just caught by hamfisted enforcement), or others who expect levels of protection they're still not getting. But that's just the exceedingly obvious parts. Every social intervention risks unintended consequences, no matter how well intentioned and angelic the goals are. Censorship in TV and movies have irreparably damaged our collective psyche for generations (e.g.: the most obvious and uncontroversial area to say it's warped us are in attitudes around sex). Where does social media censorship go from here? And what effects will it have on the population at large over time?