3 ms·

>>> One could also think of big European cities before modern policing - 18th century London or Paris were awash with sin and prone to mob violence, because the

>>> One could also think of big European cities before modern policing - 18th century London or Paris were awash with sin and prone to mob violence, because they were cities. Is the solution in the article? Do we simply need to recognise that as all society is online we now need online police? Online Community support officers (UK police adjuncts (think teaching assistants). I suspect there is an overlap with the "defund the police" movement and the notion that we need to take away a lot of policing functions that are not actually violence / crime related - eg mental health. Social work is .. a lot of work. Edit: It's worth noting that there are ~24 million or more police officers whose job description simply did not exist before Sir Robert Peel. That's a bigger number than i imagined ! wow: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-countries-by-number-of-police-officers.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-countries-by-num...

intended 6y ago
Yes. And that brings up the issue of how, exactly, are we supposed to allow a literal “thought police”.
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  It's not a thought police firstly. It's a published statement police (pretty sure there are lots of laws like "disturbing the peace") This will play out over time - call it 30 years - as we try to find out how to do lots of new things - Handle mental health better. Partly we need medical breakthroughs, but social acceptance will be a huge improvement, as will standardised approaches, early years interventions and detection. It will take huge amounts of parent training - and the recognition that has genuine costs (how many start ups did not start because the parent decided to put their energy into supporting a child. And woe betide anyone suggesting that is another hurdle to be overcome with go getting attitude) So we need huge investment in dealing with chronic mental health, not just medical, but social support, education etc. - then sorting out acute. Look at any UK prison. It's basically young men with some mix of drug / mental health / abuse issues. Want to reduce the prison population - start 20 years ago. Don't define the police - simply introduce interventions so that in 20 years they won't need to do the social work job they do now There is probably a dozen brilliant papers on this clearly showing what we should do and already modelled in a few enlightened communities globally. But it's going to take a decade of mistakes before those percolate up. Let me know if you spot the me early. After that it's social norms. We are trying to find a set of behaviours that are acceptable in the new online spaces. Public urination is frowned upon IRL - trolling is the online equivalent I guess. One can imagine things like loss of anonymity being the first part. Then slowly people develop tools to use humans inbuilt social mechanisms - so for example some asshat is intolerable, a record of their conversation is sent to the mother-in-law, 4 grandparents, all their wife's bridesmaids. (this may not work but you get the idea). We know this sort of thing works because every so often we all find that great viral thread where someone gets a comeuppance. All of this does demand content moderation as ben says - and yes I do think all of this is too much. My take is social media will die back to manageable levels - if we are looking at a mass crowd situation, a swirling football crowd and asking, how can this crowd ever become a manageable city. Well crowds don't - crowds become cities, they disperse. - There are too many forms of social media - each of us has one main form, and keep up with rest - just as we would have one friend in a crowd but interact with others. This will just die down. I mean how much value do we get from social media versus the constant worry / mind back that makes us check all the time. as humans develop social media innoculations this will die back Secondly ad dollars will help die back social media - really it's amazing no one has noticed it's a scam and waste money f money. At some point regulations and advertising will drive to a point where it is simply easier to dump the algorithm, stop driving for engagement and just supply the limited feed of friends posts, interspersed with billboard ads. Influencers will still influence, ads will still pop up, but as we are choosing who to follow we won't care. Just follow fewer people. Agents - the other big silent one. I can run a refer over my emails but the facebook client won't let me. This is the other big change likely to occur - software agents acting in my best interest filtering shit for me. Anyway bed time
johnnyanmac 6y ago
>Do we simply need to recognise that as all society is online we now need online police? Online Community support officers (UK police adjuncts (think teaching assistants). International issues would get in the way. As much as it sucks, most police won't act on a death threat made from some 12 year old in Brazil towards a normal US citizen. It's a lot of resources for no benefit on their end. it wouldn't be enforceable unless websites are enforced to only be used by citizens within that country (and worldwide punished for not abiding), with specific embassies for international conversation. Some cases may even divide it within states/providences. I see that as the worst case of a medium that was created with the goal to bring the world together.
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  International issues get in the way of policing now. We have some extradition and similar agreements for the worst crimes. I am not convinced "online police" are the right solution, but if we want to avoid walled gardens everywhere, if we want public spaces, we need public peacekeepers. In most cases, a quiet word from a police officer, who s enough to move the situation on, usually enough to prevent it escalating anywhere. The rest is likely to be slowly dealt with as part of a society wide system of mental health. A quick example - a long time ago I got a note from @dang saying my 2am comment was "racewar" (turned out he mean the comment above me) but it contains most of the issues we discuss here - a dumb comment, a quiet word from an official peacekeeper, a process of escalation / complaint and a just resolution - certainly left me thinking harder about my 2am comment habit.
  - johnnyanmac 6y ago
    >if we want public spaces, we need public peacekeepers. that seems to be what moderators/admins do currently. I know many focus on the worst, most toxic communities, but for many a simple warning will diffuse some small quibble. It seems this article and other individuals argue that this isn't sufficient, however.

intended 6y ago

Yes. And that brings up the issue of how, exactly, are we supposed to allow a literal “thought police”.

lifeisstillgood 6y ago
It's not a thought police firstly. It's a published statement police (pretty sure there are lots of laws like "disturbing the peace") This will play out over time - call it 30 years - as we try to find out how to do lots of new things - Handle mental health better. Partly we need medical breakthroughs, but social acceptance will be a huge improvement, as will standardised approaches, early years interventions and detection. It will take huge amounts of parent training - and the recognition that has genuine costs (how many start ups did not start because the parent decided to put their energy into supporting a child. And woe betide anyone suggesting that is another hurdle to be overcome with go getting attitude) So we need huge investment in dealing with chronic mental health, not just medical, but social support, education etc. - then sorting out acute. Look at any UK prison. It's basically young men with some mix of drug / mental health / abuse issues. Want to reduce the prison population - start 20 years ago. Don't define the police - simply introduce interventions so that in 20 years they won't need to do the social work job they do now There is probably a dozen brilliant papers on this clearly showing what we should do and already modelled in a few enlightened communities globally. But it's going to take a decade of mistakes before those percolate up. Let me know if you spot the me early. After that it's social norms. We are trying to find a set of behaviours that are acceptable in the new online spaces. Public urination is frowned upon IRL - trolling is the online equivalent I guess. One can imagine things like loss of anonymity being the first part. Then slowly people develop tools to use humans inbuilt social mechanisms - so for example some asshat is intolerable, a record of their conversation is sent to the mother-in-law, 4 grandparents, all their wife's bridesmaids. (this may not work but you get the idea). We know this sort of thing works because every so often we all find that great viral thread where someone gets a comeuppance. All of this does demand content moderation as ben says - and yes I do think all of this is too much. My take is social media will die back to manageable levels - if we are looking at a mass crowd situation, a swirling football crowd and asking, how can this crowd ever become a manageable city. Well crowds don't - crowds become cities, they disperse. - There are too many forms of social media - each of us has one main form, and keep up with rest - just as we would have one friend in a crowd but interact with others. This will just die down. I mean how much value do we get from social media versus the constant worry / mind back that makes us check all the time. as humans develop social media innoculations this will die back Secondly ad dollars will help die back social media - really it's amazing no one has noticed it's a scam and waste money f money. At some point regulations and advertising will drive to a point where it is simply easier to dump the algorithm, stop driving for engagement and just supply the limited feed of friends posts, interspersed with billboard ads. Influencers will still influence, ads will still pop up, but as we are choosing who to follow we won't care. Just follow fewer people. Agents - the other big silent one. I can run a refer over my emails but the facebook client won't let me. This is the other big change likely to occur - software agents acting in my best interest filtering shit for me. Anyway bed time

johnnyanmac 6y ago

>Do we simply need to recognise that as all society is online we now need online police? Online Community support officers (UK police adjuncts (think teaching assistants). International issues would get in the way. As much as it sucks, most police won't act on a death threat made from some 12 year old in Brazil towards a normal US citizen. It's a lot of resources for no benefit on their end. it wouldn't be enforceable unless websites are enforced to only be used by citizens within that country (and worldwide punished for not abiding), with specific embassies for international conversation. Some cases may even divide it within states/providences. I see that as the worst case of a medium that was created with the goal to bring the world together.

lifeisstillgood 6y ago
International issues get in the way of policing now. We have some extradition and similar agreements for the worst crimes. I am not convinced "online police" are the right solution, but if we want to avoid walled gardens everywhere, if we want public spaces, we need public peacekeepers. In most cases, a quiet word from a police officer, who s enough to move the situation on, usually enough to prevent it escalating anywhere. The rest is likely to be slowly dealt with as part of a society wide system of mental health. A quick example - a long time ago I got a note from @dang saying my 2am comment was "racewar" (turned out he mean the comment above me) but it contains most of the issues we discuss here - a dumb comment, a quiet word from an official peacekeeper, a process of escalation / complaint and a just resolution - certainly left me thinking harder about my 2am comment habit.
- johnnyanmac 6y ago
  >if we want public spaces, we need public peacekeepers. that seems to be what moderators/admins do currently. I know many focus on the worst, most toxic communities, but for many a simple warning will diffuse some small quibble. It seems this article and other individuals argue that this isn't sufficient, however.