3 ms·

My big Q is what problem they are trying to solve here. As a not entirely impartial observer, it seems like what's actually happening is that Barr wants a way t

My big Q is what problem they are trying to solve here. As a not entirely impartial observer, it seems like what's actually happening is that Barr wants a way to punish tech companies for declining to broadcast certain far right voices. Like, does anyone actually believe the world is going to be a better place because these companies have to defend themselves against an infinite stream of proxy libel and tort lawsuits? Is user generated content viable at all in a world where the hosting provider takes on liability? Could this site exist in a world where these rules are implemented fairly?

sneak 7y ago
Well, it’s not just far right stuff they’re censoring in bulk, so in a weird way I can see where he’s coming from. For example, YouTube has been taking down legal instructional gunsmithing videos (one of my hobbies) because guns. Other things that scare people but aren’t associated with a US political axis position, like the lockpicking lawyer, stay up. They are absolutely editorializing (see also: Apple’s squirt gun emoji, which I would find unconscionable even if I weren’t a firearms enthusiast because I am an accurate communications enthusiast first and foremost) and their behavior needs to change before it hurts our society even more. My friend, for example, lost a meme page he ran on Facebook with hundreds of thousands of readers for posting a male nipple (the man was wearing makeup). The censorship is not just political. They are burning books and destroying value: art, teaching, literature. It’s not okay. I just don’t think this is the right approach to it.
- jaywalk 7y ago
  Censorship on Facebook and YouTube also goes beyond simply removing content. If the almighty algorithm decides your stuff shouldn't be seen, it won't appear in peoples feeds, drastically reducing your reach. That's another huge problem.
  - sneak 7y ago
    I deleted my Instagram account on Valentine’s Day this year for this exact reason. You can’t prioritize content without deprioritizing other content. https://sneak.berlin/20200211/instagram/ https://sneak.berlin/20200211/instagram/
- azinman2 7y ago
  “They are burning books and destroying value: art, teaching, literature. It’s not okay.” What are you referring to, specifically? “ their behavior needs to change before it hurts our society even more.” What specific harm to society occurs when using a toy gun for an emoji?
  - sneak 7y ago
    I’m talking about censorship of legal content. These companies serve as sort of a web host, but also an application service provider. I have friends and acquaintances who have worked hard to build audiences, and then these platforms took that away from them via censorship. Of course, you can make the argument that it was really Facebook’s audience the whole time, but that ignores the content being generated by my friends which drove the whole thing. Useful instructional videos and webpages I liked watching/reading and wanted to revisit had been deleted in the intervening time. It’s destroying value, because these sites function as content-neutral hosting... until suddenly they don’t one day as the censorship hammer comes down. I have been telling people to start hosting on their own domains instead. This is the only way we can disintermediate our audience we work so hard to build. The gun emoji one is more subtle. Emoji are, recall, plain text. Changing the rendering of plain text to alter its meaning is really, really bad. Here’s an example scenario as to why such ambiguity is harmful: Imagine you’re a parent. It’s summer, and it’s hot. You have a squirt gun battle with your child. The next morning, you take them to school. (You’re a parent in the southern hemisphere, probably.) An hour later you get a text from them: johnny brought a (gun emoji) to school The rendering of this image is platform-specific. Their message is either harmless context-referencing fun, or cause for the most major of alarm. Which is it? Depending on the sender’s device, they could be indicating a toy gun or a real one. Depending on the receiver’s device, it could render the same or differently. Regardless of how you feel about weapons, surely you can recognize that introducing that communications ambiguity introduces a safety issue because it just impaired communications. Now realize that they did so as a political statement. That’s not okay, any more than changing the rendering of any other letter of plain text. I really, really do not want my text handling and rendering systems editorializing to me. Ever.
    - 7y ago
creaghpatr 7y ago
User-generated content can be viable if the users host/publish it themselves. That's usually the response when tech companies boot pages or accounts (ie. private companies exercising their rights)
jeffdavis 7y ago
Maybe we should just get rid of liability for authors and publishers, then, also? It's fair to ask how big of a problem libel is. It's hardly enforced now, anyway. False accusations fly, with no consequences. Reporters at major outlets repeat accusations with no evidence ("sources say that ... did ...").
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  The reason to connect liabilities to publishers is that publishers have the ability to respond to those incentives. This is not like UGC websites. UGC websites can't practically respond to content liability proactively in their current economic model, since the marginal unit of content has such low value but imposes such high risk. Therefore, if we tried to connect liability to the UGC business, the semi-democratized form it currently has would have to die. Instead, you'd have a situation much more like the broadcast model where producers and content would need to be vetted beforehand. Small-time producers without much economic value would not be permitted onto UGC sites because the risk of liability would outweigh the benefits of hosting. (I don't see YouTube going in the direction of 8chan. It would be too damaging to the brand. So the idea that there should be no moderation is right out the window.) That's the reason why these provisions exist: without them, the businesses cannot exist. Now if you think it's a problem that teens and mommy bloggers and small time streamers can upload home movies to YouTube, you might applaud this result. But personally I don't think there's a problem with that segment existing on UGC sites, so I think it's a terrible idea to connect liability to UGC sites.

sneak 7y ago

Well, it’s not just far right stuff they’re censoring in bulk, so in a weird way I can see where he’s coming from. For example, YouTube has been taking down legal instructional gunsmithing videos (one of my hobbies) because guns. Other things that scare people but aren’t associated with a US political axis position, like the lockpicking lawyer, stay up. They are absolutely editorializing (see also: Apple’s squirt gun emoji, which I would find unconscionable even if I weren’t a firearms enthusiast because I am an accurate communications enthusiast first and foremost) and their behavior needs to change before it hurts our society even more. My friend, for example, lost a meme page he ran on Facebook with hundreds of thousands of readers for posting a male nipple (the man was wearing makeup). The censorship is not just political. They are burning books and destroying value: art, teaching, literature. It’s not okay. I just don’t think this is the right approach to it.

jaywalk 7y ago
Censorship on Facebook and YouTube also goes beyond simply removing content. If the almighty algorithm decides your stuff shouldn't be seen, it won't appear in peoples feeds, drastically reducing your reach. That's another huge problem.
- sneak 7y ago
  I deleted my Instagram account on Valentine’s Day this year for this exact reason. You can’t prioritize content without deprioritizing other content. https://sneak.berlin/20200211/instagram/ https://sneak.berlin/20200211/instagram/
azinman2 7y ago
“They are burning books and destroying value: art, teaching, literature. It’s not okay.” What are you referring to, specifically? “ their behavior needs to change before it hurts our society even more.” What specific harm to society occurs when using a toy gun for an emoji?
- sneak 7y ago
  I’m talking about censorship of legal content. These companies serve as sort of a web host, but also an application service provider. I have friends and acquaintances who have worked hard to build audiences, and then these platforms took that away from them via censorship. Of course, you can make the argument that it was really Facebook’s audience the whole time, but that ignores the content being generated by my friends which drove the whole thing. Useful instructional videos and webpages I liked watching/reading and wanted to revisit had been deleted in the intervening time. It’s destroying value, because these sites function as content-neutral hosting... until suddenly they don’t one day as the censorship hammer comes down. I have been telling people to start hosting on their own domains instead. This is the only way we can disintermediate our audience we work so hard to build. The gun emoji one is more subtle. Emoji are, recall, plain text. Changing the rendering of plain text to alter its meaning is really, really bad. Here’s an example scenario as to why such ambiguity is harmful: Imagine you’re a parent. It’s summer, and it’s hot. You have a squirt gun battle with your child. The next morning, you take them to school. (You’re a parent in the southern hemisphere, probably.) An hour later you get a text from them: johnny brought a (gun emoji) to school The rendering of this image is platform-specific. Their message is either harmless context-referencing fun, or cause for the most major of alarm. Which is it? Depending on the sender’s device, they could be indicating a toy gun or a real one. Depending on the receiver’s device, it could render the same or differently. Regardless of how you feel about weapons, surely you can recognize that introducing that communications ambiguity introduces a safety issue because it just impaired communications. Now realize that they did so as a political statement. That’s not okay, any more than changing the rendering of any other letter of plain text. I really, really do not want my text handling and rendering systems editorializing to me. Ever.
  - 7y ago

creaghpatr 7y ago

User-generated content can be viable if the users host/publish it themselves. That's usually the response when tech companies boot pages or accounts (ie. private companies exercising their rights)

jeffdavis 7y ago

Maybe we should just get rid of liability for authors and publishers, then, also? It's fair to ask how big of a problem libel is. It's hardly enforced now, anyway. False accusations fly, with no consequences. Reporters at major outlets repeat accusations with no evidence ("sources say that ... did ...").

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
The reason to connect liabilities to publishers is that publishers have the ability to respond to those incentives. This is not like UGC websites. UGC websites can't practically respond to content liability proactively in their current economic model, since the marginal unit of content has such low value but imposes such high risk. Therefore, if we tried to connect liability to the UGC business, the semi-democratized form it currently has would have to die. Instead, you'd have a situation much more like the broadcast model where producers and content would need to be vetted beforehand. Small-time producers without much economic value would not be permitted onto UGC sites because the risk of liability would outweigh the benefits of hosting. (I don't see YouTube going in the direction of 8chan. It would be too damaging to the brand. So the idea that there should be no moderation is right out the window.) That's the reason why these provisions exist: without them, the businesses cannot exist. Now if you think it's a problem that teens and mommy bloggers and small time streamers can upload home movies to YouTube, you might applaud this result. But personally I don't think there's a problem with that segment existing on UGC sites, so I think it's a terrible idea to connect liability to UGC sites.