6 ms·

"I personally believe government should not allow those types of lies or fraud or child pornography [to be hidden with encryption like WhatsApp or Facebook Mess

"I personally believe government should not allow those types of lies or fraud or child pornography [to be hidden with encryption like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger]." Disappointing to see that Bill Gates isn't concerned about the slippery slope of regulating encryption. It frankly sounds like he'd be on board with the EARN IT act. As long as we're only undermining freedom for the children or to make sure there's no wrongthink going on, no problem.

ethbro 6y ago
His point is more nuanced than that, and oversimplified complex ideas virally spreading through social media is part of what he talks about. "Q: As someone who has built your life on science and logic, I’m curious what you think when you see so many people signing onto this anti-science view of the world. A: Well, strangely, I’m involved in almost everything that anti-science is fighting. I’m involved with climate change, GMOs, and vaccines. The irony is that it’s digital social media that allows this kind of titillating, oversimplistic explanation of, “OK, there’s just an evil person, and that explains all of this.” And when you have [posts] encrypted, there is no way to know what it is. I personally believe government should not allow those types of lies or fraud or child pornography [to be hidden with encryption like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger]. Q: Well, you’re friends with Mark Zuckerberg. Have you talked to him about this? After I said this publicly, he sent me mail. I like Mark, I think he’s got very good values, but he and I do disagree on the trade-offs involved there. The lies are so titillating you have to be able to see them and at least slow them down. Like that video where, what do they call her, the sperm woman? That got over 10 million views! [Note: It was more than 20 million.] Well how good are these guys at blocking things, where once something got the 10 million views and everybody was talking about it, they didn’t delete the link or the searchability? So it was meaningless. They claim, “Oh, now we don’t have it.” What effect did that have? Anybody can go watch that thing! So I am a little bit at odds with the way that these conspiracy theories spread, many of which are anti-vaccine things. We give literally tens of billions for vaccines to save lives, then people turn around saying, “No, we’re trying to make money and we’re trying to end lives.” That’s kind of a wild inversion of what our values are and what our track record is."
- typenil 6y ago
  I read all of what you pasted before I posted. I don't see how it changes my point at all. There's a complete disconnect between the first statement about encryption and the second. Unless Bill Gates really thinks that the vast majority of spread is through private messages. Even accepting the premise that censorship is the right approach, the vast majority of spread comes from public, unencrypted post. The connection to encrypted messaging is tenuous at best. Acting as if killing encryption is the solution to combating misinformation sounds like a convenient strawman that Bill Barr would love to throw around.
  - WilTimSon 6y ago
    > Unless Bill Gates really thinks that the vast majority of spread is through private messages Which would be absolutely wrong. (Not arguing, just backing up your point.) We've seen time and time again that misinformation doesn't spread as well through back channels and niche forums as it does through public figures, media and very notorious social networks. A post on 4chan will look like a scam, a post on a Facebook group of 200,000 people will look legitimate-ish. Encryption is not the tool of misinformation, people's gullibility, money, and compromised values are.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    If you take the text at face value, he's making a pretty modest proposal: (1) The current velocity of disinformation is high -> (2) this leads to socially harmful outcomes -> (3) providing P2P encryption in turnkey form via social network apps isn't a good idea. I don't see the suggestions of panopticon you do. I see someone saying 'Most people on social media platforms aren't responsible, thoughtful enough media consumers to earn a right to encryption.' Personally? I think it's a perspective worth considering. {Low-effort P2P encryption + low-effort forwarding} is a fundamentally different social value proposition than {Medium-effort P2P encryption + medium-effort forwarding}.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > I think it's a perspective worth considering. {Low-effort P2P encryption + low-effort forwarding} is a fundamentally different social value proposition than {Medium-effort P2P encryption + medium-effort forwarding}. How can that be achieved short of outlawing all encryption, heavily enforcing it and then allowing encryption "for the good guys"? If you outlaw encryption on FB or WhatsApp, even if you somehow get Telegram on board ... if people care about encryption (which I doubt, but let's pretend), somebody will provide a low-effort solution and you can't really stop it.
Vinnl 6y ago
It's odd that the part about hiding with encryption was added by Wired - I wonder how clear it was that that was what he meant, or that he just meant that he wanted stronger laws against lies and fraud. Although I guess that wouldn't mesh with the mention of child pornography, which already is disallowed.
- typenil 6y ago
  It's possible the encryption part is just Wired's editorializing and not what he intended. I might be jumping to conclusions.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    Or that they clarified his point with him, post-interview, after typing up and reading the transcript.
adventured 6y ago
> Disappointing to see that Bill Gates isn't concerned about the slippery slope of regulating encryption. It's much worse than that. Over the last several years he has been increasingly arguing against encryption. People should not be charitable toward him regarding his anti-privacy, anti-encryption, pro-authoritarian position, call it what it is. He's arguing for tyranny, plain and simple. He isn't just not concerned about the slippery slope, he's fully aware of what he is arguing for. This isn't a naive, technologically or politically oblivious person.
NicoJuicy 6y ago
I've met a couple of really smart people ( like CEOs), who are very good for their company + employees and have a very strong opinion about this. They are pro security for sure, but... Security shouldn't be abused by malicious actors. And those malicious actors shouldn't be able to hide behind encryption. In the same sense, privacy is important but I'm not sure if it's that important in Covid times ( eg. The decentralized requirements from Europe). In short: he's not saying security is bad. He's saying government spying isn't that bad IF the government can be trusted.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > In short: he's not saying security is bad. He's saying government spying isn't that bad IF the government can be trusted. Which is a long way to say "security is bad because it might keep people safe who we don't want to be kept safe".
- mellow2020 6y ago
  > He's saying government spying isn't that bad IF the government can be trusted. Yeah, IF. In reality however, it's orders of magnitude worse than any crimes that could be prevented by it.
aSplash0fDerp 6y ago
/It frankly sounds like he'd be on board with the EARN IT act./ "Infinite Retail Networks Invalidate Technology" can easily be achieved by segregating dot.com to its own "Internet/Network". "Snowglobe or be snowglobed" is a better analogy than "everybody lives in a glass house except them". ISH(water) and IRN(oil) don`t mix without constant agitation, so who better to add "business cycle" to archived knowledge and put a price on bits and bytes?

ethbro 6y ago

His point is more nuanced than that, and oversimplified complex ideas virally spreading through social media is part of what he talks about. "Q: As someone who has built your life on science and logic, I’m curious what you think when you see so many people signing onto this anti-science view of the world. A: Well, strangely, I’m involved in almost everything that anti-science is fighting. I’m involved with climate change, GMOs, and vaccines. The irony is that it’s digital social media that allows this kind of titillating, oversimplistic explanation of, “OK, there’s just an evil person, and that explains all of this.” And when you have [posts] encrypted, there is no way to know what it is. I personally believe government should not allow those types of lies or fraud or child pornography [to be hidden with encryption like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger]. Q: Well, you’re friends with Mark Zuckerberg. Have you talked to him about this? After I said this publicly, he sent me mail. I like Mark, I think he’s got very good values, but he and I do disagree on the trade-offs involved there. The lies are so titillating you have to be able to see them and at least slow them down. Like that video where, what do they call her, the sperm woman? That got over 10 million views! [Note: It was more than 20 million.] Well how good are these guys at blocking things, where once something got the 10 million views and everybody was talking about it, they didn’t delete the link or the searchability? So it was meaningless. They claim, “Oh, now we don’t have it.” What effect did that have? Anybody can go watch that thing! So I am a little bit at odds with the way that these conspiracy theories spread, many of which are anti-vaccine things. We give literally tens of billions for vaccines to save lives, then people turn around saying, “No, we’re trying to make money and we’re trying to end lives.” That’s kind of a wild inversion of what our values are and what our track record is."

typenil 6y ago
I read all of what you pasted before I posted. I don't see how it changes my point at all. There's a complete disconnect between the first statement about encryption and the second. Unless Bill Gates really thinks that the vast majority of spread is through private messages. Even accepting the premise that censorship is the right approach, the vast majority of spread comes from public, unencrypted post. The connection to encrypted messaging is tenuous at best. Acting as if killing encryption is the solution to combating misinformation sounds like a convenient strawman that Bill Barr would love to throw around.
- WilTimSon 6y ago
  > Unless Bill Gates really thinks that the vast majority of spread is through private messages Which would be absolutely wrong. (Not arguing, just backing up your point.) We've seen time and time again that misinformation doesn't spread as well through back channels and niche forums as it does through public figures, media and very notorious social networks. A post on 4chan will look like a scam, a post on a Facebook group of 200,000 people will look legitimate-ish. Encryption is not the tool of misinformation, people's gullibility, money, and compromised values are.
- ethbro 6y ago
  If you take the text at face value, he's making a pretty modest proposal: (1) The current velocity of disinformation is high -> (2) this leads to socially harmful outcomes -> (3) providing P2P encryption in turnkey form via social network apps isn't a good idea. I don't see the suggestions of panopticon you do. I see someone saying 'Most people on social media platforms aren't responsible, thoughtful enough media consumers to earn a right to encryption.' Personally? I think it's a perspective worth considering. {Low-effort P2P encryption + low-effort forwarding} is a fundamentally different social value proposition than {Medium-effort P2P encryption + medium-effort forwarding}.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > I think it's a perspective worth considering. {Low-effort P2P encryption + low-effort forwarding} is a fundamentally different social value proposition than {Medium-effort P2P encryption + medium-effort forwarding}. How can that be achieved short of outlawing all encryption, heavily enforcing it and then allowing encryption "for the good guys"? If you outlaw encryption on FB or WhatsApp, even if you somehow get Telegram on board ... if people care about encryption (which I doubt, but let's pretend), somebody will provide a low-effort solution and you can't really stop it.

Vinnl 6y ago

It's odd that the part about hiding with encryption was added by Wired - I wonder how clear it was that that was what he meant, or that he just meant that he wanted stronger laws against lies and fraud. Although I guess that wouldn't mesh with the mention of child pornography, which already is disallowed.

typenil 6y ago
It's possible the encryption part is just Wired's editorializing and not what he intended. I might be jumping to conclusions.
- ethbro 6y ago
  Or that they clarified his point with him, post-interview, after typing up and reading the transcript.

adventured 6y ago

> Disappointing to see that Bill Gates isn't concerned about the slippery slope of regulating encryption. It's much worse than that. Over the last several years he has been increasingly arguing against encryption. People should not be charitable toward him regarding his anti-privacy, anti-encryption, pro-authoritarian position, call it what it is. He's arguing for tyranny, plain and simple. He isn't just not concerned about the slippery slope, he's fully aware of what he is arguing for. This isn't a naive, technologically or politically oblivious person.

NicoJuicy 6y ago

I've met a couple of really smart people ( like CEOs), who are very good for their company + employees and have a very strong opinion about this. They are pro security for sure, but... Security shouldn't be abused by malicious actors. And those malicious actors shouldn't be able to hide behind encryption. In the same sense, privacy is important but I'm not sure if it's that important in Covid times ( eg. The decentralized requirements from Europe). In short: he's not saying security is bad. He's saying government spying isn't that bad IF the government can be trusted.

luckylion 6y ago
> In short: he's not saying security is bad. He's saying government spying isn't that bad IF the government can be trusted. Which is a long way to say "security is bad because it might keep people safe who we don't want to be kept safe".
mellow2020 6y ago
> He's saying government spying isn't that bad IF the government can be trusted. Yeah, IF. In reality however, it's orders of magnitude worse than any crimes that could be prevented by it.

aSplash0fDerp 6y ago

/It frankly sounds like he'd be on board with the EARN IT act./ "Infinite Retail Networks Invalidate Technology" can easily be achieved by segregating dot.com to its own "Internet/Network". "Snowglobe or be snowglobed" is a better analogy than "everybody lives in a glass house except them". ISH(water) and IRN(oil) don`t mix without constant agitation, so who better to add "business cycle" to archived knowledge and put a price on bits and bytes?