6 ms·

As always. What could go wrong with a such setup. > The GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop th

As always. What could go wrong with a such setup. > The GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop the spread of mass shooting videos and other terrorist material online. When a member of the group flags a photo, video or post as terrorist-related, a digital fingerprint called a “hash” is shared across all its members In effect, that means a bikini pic wrongly flagged as jihadist propaganda on Instagram can also be quickly censored on Twitter or YouTube, all without the poster or public knowing that it was placed on the list — much less how or why

riedel 4y ago
We didn't read enough dystopian novels yet to that describe the privatisation of law enforcement. We wanted the real thing.
- 93po 4y ago
  Law enforcement started out privatized, and has basically always existed mainly for the benefit of the privileged private class.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - contingencies 4y ago
    +1 insightful. Also, Ancient Egyptian Police Had Trained Monkeys https://www.ranker.com/list/police-in-ancient-societies/mike-rothschild https://www.ranker.com/list/police-in-ancient-societies/mike...
    - 93po 4y ago
      Having a trained monkey try to chase you down (presumably with a weapon) sounds terrifying, yet somehow I'm not convinced it would be all together worse than what we have now
  - m-p-3 4y ago
    Law and order: Laws are made and signed by the ruling class (not saying all laws are bad, we need them), and they (hopefully) reflect which values the people wants their justice system to protect. Order can be interpreted in two ways; keeping society stable, but also keeping the order (the status quo) of the social classes as they are.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread" -Anatole France
    - netsharc 4y ago
      There's some nice beach city where people are not allowed to have a nice walk on the beach at night because they made some law to prevent homeless people sleeping there... if only Google was still a proper search engine I could post the link..
- ars 4y ago
  I've always felt that "large" providers should not be able to ban someone except for something that is illegal in the real world. Every time I post it people hate the idea "it's a private service you can't tell them what to do". And the alternative is what exactly? (And yes, I know there are some details to work out, what is "large", what about Spam, what about offtopic messages. But those are details, my post is about the main idea of banning someone. Hate speech and harassment are already illegal.)
  - kube-system 4y ago
    The alternative is designation as a public utility.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - anotherman554 4y ago
    Hate speech isn't necessarily illegal nor do I know what you have in mind when you say "harassment" is illegal, there are 50 states in the U.S. with 50 sets of laws.
  - mrtranscendence 4y ago
    Let's say I've got a website called Jay's Cool Community for Elementary School Kids and their Parents. Steve comes in and starts posting nazi symbology, and as soon as I delete his content he just posts more. Nazi symbols aren't illegal in the country where Steve and I reside, so under your regime I can't boot him from my website. Do I, as Jay, have no recourse now?
    - michaelgrafl 4y ago
      You should be able to ban him from your website. But not all other websites on the Internet.
      - pc86 4y ago
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop the spread of mass shooting videos and other terrorist material online This information sharing should be investigated as a potential breach of competition law. For example, are Snap or TikTok disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft and Google are sharing information [1]? [1] https://gifct.org/membership/# https://gifct.org/membership/#
- EricE 4y ago
  >are Snap or TikTok disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft and Google are sharing information While I think it's ridiculous entities like Meta have taken it up on themselves to have their own "watch lists", in this instant I'd say absolutely not. Indeed I would argue one of the significant reasons Tik Tok is continuing to explode in popularity is they aren't participating in the overt censorship going on in the rest of big tech.
  - abeppu 4y ago
    TikTok has had some serious issues with censorship, and is way more directly political than some of the other companies you've named. Like, if you care about this stuff, please be careful of who you try to hold up as a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_on_TikTok#Political_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_on_TikTok#Political...
koheripbal 4y ago
While some would argue that private companies have the right to censor users without exception - when private companies form a near-monopoly on artistic expression online, they should ethically inherit the government's ethical responsibility to protect freedom of expression. In this case this isn't only a violation of the users' freedom of expression - it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  If they didn't work together people would instead complain about there being more extremist content. None of these companies want the bad PR from "news" articles saying that they aren't stopping extremist content from their platform. >it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics. It doesn't look anticompetitive to me considering you can ask to join the group.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  What companies have a "near-monopoly on artistic expression online?" I can have a web site up and running in an hour publishing any art I have the right to publish, with just an IP from my ISP and optionally a domain name. I don't need to ask any company's permission.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    That's akin to saying that booting someone from the US telephone system isn't censorship because they can always setup their own phone line from their living room to a phone installed on their front lawn - that anyone can come and talk to them on. The reality of the world is that social media is a completely separate medium from social media. A monopoly on social media is not relevant to the ability to create your own URL.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      Except there is no feasible alternative to the phone system for making phone calls (although there are a multitude of video, voice and text chat apps), whereas there are many social media companies and also many blog hosts and VPS services and web server software and so on. You have so many choices. I'd argue that if you want to publish something on the Internet, there has been no better time to do it than today, and it keeps getting better!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

riedel 4y ago

We didn't read enough dystopian novels yet to that describe the privatisation of law enforcement. We wanted the real thing.

93po 4y ago
Law enforcement started out privatized, and has basically always existed mainly for the benefit of the privileged private class.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- contingencies 4y ago
  +1 insightful. Also, Ancient Egyptian Police Had Trained Monkeys https://www.ranker.com/list/police-in-ancient-societies/mike-rothschild https://www.ranker.com/list/police-in-ancient-societies/mike...
  - 93po 4y ago
    Having a trained monkey try to chase you down (presumably with a weapon) sounds terrifying, yet somehow I'm not convinced it would be all together worse than what we have now
- m-p-3 4y ago
  Law and order: Laws are made and signed by the ruling class (not saying all laws are bad, we need them), and they (hopefully) reflect which values the people wants their justice system to protect. Order can be interpreted in two ways; keeping society stable, but also keeping the order (the status quo) of the social classes as they are.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread" -Anatole France
  - netsharc 4y ago
    There's some nice beach city where people are not allowed to have a nice walk on the beach at night because they made some law to prevent homeless people sleeping there... if only Google was still a proper search engine I could post the link..
ars 4y ago
I've always felt that "large" providers should not be able to ban someone except for something that is illegal in the real world. Every time I post it people hate the idea "it's a private service you can't tell them what to do". And the alternative is what exactly? (And yes, I know there are some details to work out, what is "large", what about Spam, what about offtopic messages. But those are details, my post is about the main idea of banning someone. Hate speech and harassment are already illegal.)
- kube-system 4y ago
  The alternative is designation as a public utility.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- anotherman554 4y ago
  Hate speech isn't necessarily illegal nor do I know what you have in mind when you say "harassment" is illegal, there are 50 states in the U.S. with 50 sets of laws.
- mrtranscendence 4y ago
  Let's say I've got a website called Jay's Cool Community for Elementary School Kids and their Parents. Steve comes in and starts posting nazi symbology, and as soon as I delete his content he just posts more. Nazi symbols aren't illegal in the country where Steve and I reside, so under your regime I can't boot him from my website. Do I, as Jay, have no recourse now?
  - michaelgrafl 4y ago
    You should be able to ban him from your website. But not all other websites on the Internet.
    - pc86 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop the spread of mass shooting videos and other terrorist material online This information sharing should be investigated as a potential breach of competition law. For example, are Snap or TikTok disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft and Google are sharing information [1]? [1] https://gifct.org/membership/# https://gifct.org/membership/#

EricE 4y ago
>are Snap or TikTok disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft and Google are sharing information While I think it's ridiculous entities like Meta have taken it up on themselves to have their own "watch lists", in this instant I'd say absolutely not. Indeed I would argue one of the significant reasons Tik Tok is continuing to explode in popularity is they aren't participating in the overt censorship going on in the rest of big tech.
- abeppu 4y ago
  TikTok has had some serious issues with censorship, and is way more directly political than some of the other companies you've named. Like, if you care about this stuff, please be careful of who you try to hold up as a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_on_TikTok#Political_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_on_TikTok#Political...

koheripbal 4y ago

While some would argue that private companies have the right to censor users without exception - when private companies form a near-monopoly on artistic expression online, they should ethically inherit the government's ethical responsibility to protect freedom of expression. In this case this isn't only a violation of the users' freedom of expression - it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics.

charcircuit 4y ago
If they didn't work together people would instead complain about there being more extremist content. None of these companies want the bad PR from "news" articles saying that they aren't stopping extremist content from their platform. >it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics. It doesn't look anticompetitive to me considering you can ask to join the group.
ryandrake 4y ago
What companies have a "near-monopoly on artistic expression online?" I can have a web site up and running in an hour publishing any art I have the right to publish, with just an IP from my ISP and optionally a domain name. I don't need to ask any company's permission.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  That's akin to saying that booting someone from the US telephone system isn't censorship because they can always setup their own phone line from their living room to a phone installed on their front lawn - that anyone can come and talk to them on. The reality of the world is that social media is a completely separate medium from social media. A monopoly on social media is not relevant to the ability to create your own URL.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Except there is no feasible alternative to the phone system for making phone calls (although there are a multitude of video, voice and text chat apps), whereas there are many social media companies and also many blog hosts and VPS services and web server software and so on. You have so many choices. I'd argue that if you want to publish something on the Internet, there has been no better time to do it than today, and it keeps getting better!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]