2 ms·

the "meet at a bar to plot a murder" metaphor isn't at all how the the tech companies faciliate these things. Its more like if the group meets at a bar, and exc

the "meet at a bar to plot a murder" metaphor isn't at all how the the tech companies faciliate these things. Its more like if the group meets at a bar, and exclusively communicated through with each other through the bartender. In that case, would the bartender have an obligation to tell law enforcement that a group at the bar was planning a murder? I think so.

cmdli 6y ago
I think "communicating through the barkeeper" makes the barkeeper's involvement sound much more intentional than it actually would be. It's more like if a group regularly gathered at the bar, using the barkeeper's space and supplies, and planned a murder. The barkeeper might have a responsibility to listen in to the conversation and report if they are planning a crime, and the group is using the barkeeper's space to organize, but it's not like the barkeeper ever agreed for that specific group to use their space.
- devonbleak 6y ago
  But the platforms have perfect knowledge of the text content of these conversations. It's not unreasonable to say they have near-perfect knowledge of the graphic and A/V content also - that stuff is easily automatically parsed at this point and they're likely already doing that parsing. Hell it's part of their business model for increasing the value of their ads.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    > But the platforms have perfect knowledge of the text content of these conversations. "[P]erfect knowledge"? They have knowledge of the text. You can even say they have perfectly accurate knowledge of the text. Do they have perfect comprehension and understanding of the text? They have some comprehension and understanding in order to direct ads. But it is not perfect comprehension and understanding. And unless you're content with your apparently violent talk that's actually about a guild raid in WoW getting blasted by an AI, they need humans to ultimately decide what to do about content.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Jtsummers 6y ago
That example also fails. Without a very high degree of oversight of content, Twitter, Facebook, et al. are often unaware of what's actually posted. Not in the sense that it's unknowable, but that the technical systems facilitating the communication are just that, technical systems. They are not people. A go-between who is both aware of the messages and capable of comprehending them (sent in the clear) can easily be argued to be part of the conspiracy. But a go-between who is incapable of comprehending the messages has a valid defense (especially if the vast majority of the things they sit between are legal communications and not criminal conspiracies). Twitter et al. are capable of knowing, but due to the scope of their systems the communication often has to be obvious or brought to their attention for them to become aware of it in order to to react appropriately.

cmdli 6y ago

I think "communicating through the barkeeper" makes the barkeeper's involvement sound much more intentional than it actually would be. It's more like if a group regularly gathered at the bar, using the barkeeper's space and supplies, and planned a murder. The barkeeper might have a responsibility to listen in to the conversation and report if they are planning a crime, and the group is using the barkeeper's space to organize, but it's not like the barkeeper ever agreed for that specific group to use their space.

devonbleak 6y ago
But the platforms have perfect knowledge of the text content of these conversations. It's not unreasonable to say they have near-perfect knowledge of the graphic and A/V content also - that stuff is easily automatically parsed at this point and they're likely already doing that parsing. Hell it's part of their business model for increasing the value of their ads.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  > But the platforms have perfect knowledge of the text content of these conversations. "[P]erfect knowledge"? They have knowledge of the text. You can even say they have perfectly accurate knowledge of the text. Do they have perfect comprehension and understanding of the text? They have some comprehension and understanding in order to direct ads. But it is not perfect comprehension and understanding. And unless you're content with your apparently violent talk that's actually about a guild raid in WoW getting blasted by an AI, they need humans to ultimately decide what to do about content.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Jtsummers 6y ago

That example also fails. Without a very high degree of oversight of content, Twitter, Facebook, et al. are often unaware of what's actually posted. Not in the sense that it's unknowable, but that the technical systems facilitating the communication are just that, technical systems. They are not people. A go-between who is both aware of the messages and capable of comprehending them (sent in the clear) can easily be argued to be part of the conspiracy. But a go-between who is incapable of comprehending the messages has a valid defense (especially if the vast majority of the things they sit between are legal communications and not criminal conspiracies). Twitter et al. are capable of knowing, but due to the scope of their systems the communication often has to be obvious or brought to their attention for them to become aware of it in order to to react appropriately.