3 ms·

I'd be concerned if the U.S. passed this law. Who defines what "good" or "positive energy"? Who defines what is fake news? Does providing users information t

by beloch 5y ago

I'd be concerned if the U.S. passed this law. Who defines what "good" or "positive energy"? Who defines what is fake news? Does providing users information that is "not tailored to their personal characteristics" mean that it's, instead, tailored to the state's preferences? The language of the law sounds nice and there are aspects that probably meet goals that are not necessarily harmful to people (e.g. Addicted people are less productive, so avoiding addiction is good for the state as well as the individual), but it definitely could be used by a state to control what people see online. That's political control of media. If you wouldn't be concerned if this passed under Biden, how about if it were passed under Trump? Remember what he called "fake news"? How much more should we be concerned about it being passed in China, where state control over media is absolute? e.g. Anything involving the Tienanmen square massacre is virtually guaranteed to be classified as "fake news", "not good", or "not conducive of positive energy" by this law. How do companies like facebook ensure they're compliant with the law then? Censorship. This isn't good news. This is absolutely dystopian.

sebow 5y ago
Of course it's dystopian and some people seem to buy into the narrative that it's "for people's own good". Well 'yes' but not really, because the primary motivation is to counter any entity that might gain power over the government(even though they already pretty much control any company inside China, so it's kind of redundant), not because the Chinese government gives any f*cks about it's people as much as to pass such a law. If they legitimately cared about "people above algorithms" they wouldn't have a social credit system, wouldn't persecute uyghurs by using either home-made but mostly stolen technology from western powers (primarily US) through corporate espionage. As for what the article is saying: "the option to disable recomm. systems"; Well my statements still apply: companies would supposedly have to abide by this law, whereas the government would still use them to control the population. A feed system in tiktok would be disabled but a feed system for the government showing "problematic citizens" (which is exactly the same) would still apply, you just won't know about it. Thus the hypocrisy, thus the blank words; But it helps portray them as some kind of pioneers in cyber-ethics, which is funny to say the least.
sudosysgen 5y ago
Isn't the wording "synthetic false news"? There are already other laws to prevent people from posting about Tiananmen square, there's no need to add a new one.

by beloch 5y ago

sebow 5y ago

Of course it's dystopian and some people seem to buy into the narrative that it's "for people's own good". Well 'yes' but not really, because the primary motivation is to counter any entity that might gain power over the government(even though they already pretty much control any company inside China, so it's kind of redundant), not because the Chinese government gives any f*cks about it's people as much as to pass such a law. If they legitimately cared about "people above algorithms" they wouldn't have a social credit system, wouldn't persecute uyghurs by using either home-made but mostly stolen technology from western powers (primarily US) through corporate espionage. As for what the article is saying: "the option to disable recomm. systems"; Well my statements still apply: companies would supposedly have to abide by this law, whereas the government would still use them to control the population. A feed system in tiktok would be disabled but a feed system for the government showing "problematic citizens" (which is exactly the same) would still apply, you just won't know about it. Thus the hypocrisy, thus the blank words; But it helps portray them as some kind of pioneers in cyber-ethics, which is funny to say the least.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Isn't the wording "synthetic false news"? There are already other laws to prevent people from posting about Tiananmen square, there's no need to add a new one.