6 ms·

>But what's the concrete proposal here? How would things actually work? Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to s

>But what's the concrete proposal here? How would things actually work? Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to service sends their way? If not, how is this supposed to fix the moderation problem? Does gmail block emails from your friends containing misinformation? Why should facebook be allowed to do the same thing?

throwawayboise 5y ago
Google is apparently going to be doing that with content on Drive. Not sure what they've said or not said about gMail but what's the difference, really?
- shrimpx 5y ago
  The difference is that gmail isn't publicly serving your emails to an open audience. The restrictions on Drive are only for publicly-served content.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    So they say. For now.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      I dunno why this is downmodded, given that e.g. OneDrive already applies its rules to all content, not just shared stuff; and Facebook is actively censoring even private chats (it will refuse to send some links, e.g. to certain websites about cannabis).
  - lmm 5y ago
    That isn't true, they already block you from downloading content from private shared folders that they decide to restrict.
jsnell 5y ago
Gmail does all kinds of filtering on the incoming messages, such as detecting spam, malware and phishing. So it certainly isn't the case that they're just delivering every email to your inbox. Do they block misinfo? I genuinely have no idea. But if it's not happening, it seems pretty obviously like an explicit product decision rather than some kind of regulatory requirement.
southerntofu 5y ago
> Does gmail block emails from your friends containing misinformation? No, but they actively block emails from many legit servers in order to enforce an email oligopoly. Note I'm not talking about servers who can't DKIM sign or are on well-known blocklists.
clucas 5y ago
I think it's OK to say (1) you are allowed to send pornographic magazines through the mail from your place of business, but (2) you are not allowed to put a pornographic image on the front of your building. I also think it's fair to carry this analogy over to the internet, and the difference between an email and a social media post.
- naasking 5y ago
  And that would be fine, social media companies don't have to promote "objectionable" content in curated public feeds, but people who deliberately subscribed to or are looking for that content should still be able to see it (like Trump's feed). That's the step people are objecting to, so the analogy you draw just isn't relevant.
- int_19h 5y ago
  A social media post is read only by the people who subscribed to the author, and those who followed the links to it. Not quite the same as a public building that random people walk past, and have to see regardless of whether they want to or not.
diffeomorphism 5y ago
Don't they? If someone sends me spam/malware I expect gmail to filter that, even if it is from a friend's (hijacked) account. I think there definitely is a very blurry line between spam/fraud and spam/misinformation.
- int_19h 5y ago
  There's no blurry line - both are spam if the recipient didn't ask for them. But at the same time, misinformation is not necessarily spam, and the ongoing brouhaha is largely about the kinds that people voluntarily choose to consume (and come back to ask for more).

throwawayboise 5y ago

Google is apparently going to be doing that with content on Drive. Not sure what they've said or not said about gMail but what's the difference, really?

shrimpx 5y ago
The difference is that gmail isn't publicly serving your emails to an open audience. The restrictions on Drive are only for publicly-served content.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  So they say. For now.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    I dunno why this is downmodded, given that e.g. OneDrive already applies its rules to all content, not just shared stuff; and Facebook is actively censoring even private chats (it will refuse to send some links, e.g. to certain websites about cannabis).
- lmm 5y ago
  That isn't true, they already block you from downloading content from private shared folders that they decide to restrict.

jsnell 5y ago

Gmail does all kinds of filtering on the incoming messages, such as detecting spam, malware and phishing. So it certainly isn't the case that they're just delivering every email to your inbox. Do they block misinfo? I genuinely have no idea. But if it's not happening, it seems pretty obviously like an explicit product decision rather than some kind of regulatory requirement.

southerntofu 5y ago

> Does gmail block emails from your friends containing misinformation? No, but they actively block emails from many legit servers in order to enforce an email oligopoly. Note I'm not talking about servers who can't DKIM sign or are on well-known blocklists.

clucas 5y ago

I think it's OK to say (1) you are allowed to send pornographic magazines through the mail from your place of business, but (2) you are not allowed to put a pornographic image on the front of your building. I also think it's fair to carry this analogy over to the internet, and the difference between an email and a social media post.

naasking 5y ago
And that would be fine, social media companies don't have to promote "objectionable" content in curated public feeds, but people who deliberately subscribed to or are looking for that content should still be able to see it (like Trump's feed). That's the step people are objecting to, so the analogy you draw just isn't relevant.
int_19h 5y ago
A social media post is read only by the people who subscribed to the author, and those who followed the links to it. Not quite the same as a public building that random people walk past, and have to see regardless of whether they want to or not.

diffeomorphism 5y ago

Don't they? If someone sends me spam/malware I expect gmail to filter that, even if it is from a friend's (hijacked) account. I think there definitely is a very blurry line between spam/fraud and spam/misinformation.

int_19h 5y ago
There's no blurry line - both are spam if the recipient didn't ask for them. But at the same time, misinformation is not necessarily spam, and the ongoing brouhaha is largely about the kinds that people voluntarily choose to consume (and come back to ask for more).