4 ms·

My suggestion is the government doesn't decide what content should be surfaced but and neither shoulf it set what categories content filters use, it simply enf

by _8j50 3y ago

My suggestion is the government doesn't decide what content should be surfaced but and neither shoulf it set what categories content filters use, it simply enforces security of content filtering software, promotes them and legitimizes them more and most importantly, policies what categories and methods they can't use (not the other way around). Using legally protected groups as a category, or using ML or private data to measure browing habits/intent or sharing browing habits to third parties are some examples of what the FTC would prohibit. The rest is up to parents,not the government. That would make everyone happy. Worsr case, social media companies might be forced to cooperate with third party content filtering services to help them identify things like cyberbullying or groomong and notify parents before their kids self-harm (again, final decision or even the decision to collect/use that info is up to parents). Give parents tools instead of expanding surveillance powers and using kids as an excuse is my message, if they are serious about helping kids. I feel like everyone in tech is engaging in a culture war instead of fighting for what they believe in by using their strength: technical solutions to supposed problems like this and leaving would be government abusers without an excuse.

scarface_74 3y ago
> simply enforces security of content filtering software, promotes them and legitimizes them more and most importantly, You trust the government to be competent enough to “enforce security” on software? And what would be the criteria for “legitimizing” a piece of filtering software that didn’t involve ideology?
- _8j50 3y ago
  They are already doing it with NIST CSF and most companies are following that framework because there is no better option. PCI and HIPPA are also a thing, this would be similar. > And what would be the criteria for “legitimizing” a piece of filtering software that didn’t involve ideology? It works across various site and content, discloses capability and passes privacy and security requirements. The details of what criteria it uses is not regulated, but what it can't use is. It can include abortion for example or not include it, but it can't include "police services" or "black people" because preventing kids from accessing the police or discriminating protected groups is not legal already. FTC cannot force companies to filter specific content, it will leave it to the market to demand lawful categories parents want to use. Even adults want this.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    > PCI and HIPPA Neither of those are political or ideological. No one is arguing on any side of the aisle that companies should be able to indiscriminately share medical or financial information. > It can include abortion Why can it include abortion? To me and many others, abortion should be no more of a religious argument than whether I can get psuedophredrine to treat sinuses. The government already pressured companies to suppress information early on in Covid that everyone now agrees shouldn’t have been suppressed - that the vaccines were not 100% effective and that you could still spread Covid if vaccinated. > FTC cannot force companies to filter specific content, it will leave it to the market to demand lawful categories parents want to use. Even adults want this. And the “market” already has filtering mechanisms that allow parents to filter what their children can see. It’s built into iOS and the carriers offer a service.

by _8j50 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

> simply enforces security of content filtering software, promotes them and legitimizes them more and most importantly, You trust the government to be competent enough to “enforce security” on software? And what would be the criteria for “legitimizing” a piece of filtering software that didn’t involve ideology?

_8j50 3y ago
They are already doing it with NIST CSF and most companies are following that framework because there is no better option. PCI and HIPPA are also a thing, this would be similar. > And what would be the criteria for “legitimizing” a piece of filtering software that didn’t involve ideology? It works across various site and content, discloses capability and passes privacy and security requirements. The details of what criteria it uses is not regulated, but what it can't use is. It can include abortion for example or not include it, but it can't include "police services" or "black people" because preventing kids from accessing the police or discriminating protected groups is not legal already. FTC cannot force companies to filter specific content, it will leave it to the market to demand lawful categories parents want to use. Even adults want this.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > PCI and HIPPA Neither of those are political or ideological. No one is arguing on any side of the aisle that companies should be able to indiscriminately share medical or financial information. > It can include abortion Why can it include abortion? To me and many others, abortion should be no more of a religious argument than whether I can get psuedophredrine to treat sinuses. The government already pressured companies to suppress information early on in Covid that everyone now agrees shouldn’t have been suppressed - that the vaccines were not 100% effective and that you could still spread Covid if vaccinated. > FTC cannot force companies to filter specific content, it will leave it to the market to demand lawful categories parents want to use. Even adults want this. And the “market” already has filtering mechanisms that allow parents to filter what their children can see. It’s built into iOS and the carriers offer a service.