4 ms·

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 encr

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.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    I'd hazard to say most people outside of tech (in free speech countries) don't care about encryption as a key feature.
disillusioned 6y ago
I think Gates's point has merit with WhatsApp and like, India, where the group chat mob is very very real and very dangerous [1], and since it's all E2EE, there's no easy way to monitor the proliferation of this sort of misinformation. (Though my understanding was that they put some filters in to the front-ends of the app to reduce some of the more aggressive spreading, and further reduces the number of forwards you could make.) And either way, banning E2EE isn't the answer and is a horrifying proposition for all of the slippery slope reasons we're all familiar with. You're also absolutely right that most of the spread is just happening in the clear on normal FB or Twitter posts, and not as encrypted WhatsApp messages. I think that FB has a moral imperative to significantly reduce the easy of sharing, frankly. It's a single click to commit a share/forward that passes along misinformation instantly with no effort on the part of the sharer. It should require _some_ effort: having to create your own post, for instance. It would dramatically slow the viral-spread-like-wildfire aspect of the most egregious pieces of viral misinformation: where people simply see a salacious headline that confirms their biases or aligns with their views and mindlessly clicks share. That is addressable by reducing the patterns meant to increase viral spread, which admittedly is a huge part of what lead to Facebook's success, but it's now causing far more harm than good.
ooobit2 6y ago
To WilTimSon's point: Having been on and off Tor, 4chan, 7chan, and a number of other networks and sites that host pretty questionable and sketchy stuff, I'd easily say the vast majority of people using these back channels don't take themselves seriously. 4chan mocked the hell out of the Christchurch shooter and Elliot Rodgers. None of those comments would be agreeable to the general public. The only places I've seen these guys, as well as Tsarnaev and the Columbine shooters praised is... Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit. While I'm concerned about child pornography, there's more of it on Pornhub and XNXX than I've seen on Tor. And it's the low barriers to access on public porn sites that use automated filters that cause more of an issue. Bing itself will find adolescents if you type in keywords like "2k4" and "2ke" with adult terms. Maybe Bill should focus less on trying to expose private paths and more on addressing the glaring gaps that come with over-automating platforms.

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.
- ethbro 6y ago
  I'd hazard to say most people outside of tech (in free speech countries) don't care about encryption as a key feature.

disillusioned 6y ago

I think Gates's point has merit with WhatsApp and like, India, where the group chat mob is very very real and very dangerous [1], and since it's all E2EE, there's no easy way to monitor the proliferation of this sort of misinformation. (Though my understanding was that they put some filters in to the front-ends of the app to reduce some of the more aggressive spreading, and further reduces the number of forwards you could make.) And either way, banning E2EE isn't the answer and is a horrifying proposition for all of the slippery slope reasons we're all familiar with. You're also absolutely right that most of the spread is just happening in the clear on normal FB or Twitter posts, and not as encrypted WhatsApp messages. I think that FB has a moral imperative to significantly reduce the easy of sharing, frankly. It's a single click to commit a share/forward that passes along misinformation instantly with no effort on the part of the sharer. It should require _some_ effort: having to create your own post, for instance. It would dramatically slow the viral-spread-like-wildfire aspect of the most egregious pieces of viral misinformation: where people simply see a salacious headline that confirms their biases or aligns with their views and mindlessly clicks share. That is addressable by reducing the patterns meant to increase viral spread, which admittedly is a huge part of what lead to Facebook's success, but it's now causing far more harm than good.

ooobit2 6y ago

To WilTimSon's point: Having been on and off Tor, 4chan, 7chan, and a number of other networks and sites that host pretty questionable and sketchy stuff, I'd easily say the vast majority of people using these back channels don't take themselves seriously. 4chan mocked the hell out of the Christchurch shooter and Elliot Rodgers. None of those comments would be agreeable to the general public. The only places I've seen these guys, as well as Tsarnaev and the Columbine shooters praised is... Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit. While I'm concerned about child pornography, there's more of it on Pornhub and XNXX than I've seen on Tor. And it's the low barriers to access on public porn sites that use automated filters that cause more of an issue. Bing itself will find adolescents if you type in keywords like "2k4" and "2ke" with adult terms. Maybe Bill should focus less on trying to expose private paths and more on addressing the glaring gaps that come with over-automating platforms.