4 ms·

We definitely do not “need” that. We already had enough years of real name social media before LLMs to know that real names do not stop people from being public

by latexr 2y ago

We definitely do not “need” that. We already had enough years of real name social media before LLMs to know that real names do not stop people from being publicly abusive and that social media is bad for us. What you’re advocating for is making a bad system worse. Your suggestion won’t solve any problem and will introduce new ones, like making manipulation and censorship easier. You’re advocating for an authoritarian’s wet dream (and a treasure trove for data miners). Right now, including in Europe, that’s the last thing we need. I vote a hard no on your proposal. I’m opposed to it like I am to Chat Control. Signed, A European

m2024 2y ago
[dead]
indigo945 2y ago
> Your suggestion won’t solve any problem and will introduce new ones, like making manipulation and censorship easier. This is absolutely untrue for manipulation. Currently, private (both American and Chinese) social media platforms have become mouthpieces of authoritarian propaganda and misinformation. Russian bot farms cooperate with American billionaires to push destabilizing extremist propaganda and suppress moderate voices. And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. But that is not the proposal here: the proposal is to provide an alternative, which guarantees that the opinion you read is, in fact, the opinion of a real (European) person, not the output of an LLM trained on the hateful ramblings of the Yarvins and Dugins of this world. If that's not what you want, you're free to go back to TikTok, X or Facebook. We are in agreement on "chat control" and similar anti-encryption political schemes, but the social media question pertains to public, not private, communications. Signed, Colin Emonds (of Cologne, Germany) A European
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. It wouldn't only update the floodgates, it's rather the idea behind these proposals. :-)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nodoll 2y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- latexr 2y ago
  > Currently, private (both American and Chinese) social media platforms have become mouthpieces of authoritarian propaganda and misinformation. Which is an orthogonal issue. Private social media doing it does not mean government-owned social media wouldn’t. In fact, it is precisely because authoritarians already can see it working that they would salivate at the though. > And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. But that is not the proposal here You’re agreeing with and rebutting things I haven’t said. I don’t think the proposal was to outlaw other forms of social media. I still think the proposal is bad on its own. > which guarantees that the opinion you read is, in fact, the opinion of a real (European) person, not the output of an LLM trained on the hateful ramblings of the Yarvins and Dugins of this world. It guarantees no such thing. There’s nothing stopping that real person from asking an LLM and posting the reply directly. That already happens today. Heck, people confidently post screenshots of LLM conversations as if they were fact even when they’re provably wrong. > If that's not what you want, you're free to go back to TikTok, X or Facebook. I personally don’t use any of those, and neither would I defend them. Again, my argument is those are already bad and OP’s proposal is just as bad and then adds worse things on top.
  - indigo945 2y ago
    > It guarantees no such thing. There’s nothing stopping that real person from asking an LLM and posting the reply directly. The point is that it prevents multi-accounting and deliberate astroturfing campaigns. If people personally decide to just trust ChatGPT screenshots as gospel and assume LLM outout as their opinion, that's their own prerogative.
markhahn 2y ago
I guess I have two questions: - do you think it is so hard to track people by their other behavior? that is, do pseudonyms actually work? - isn't harrassment by realnamed actors a failure of the (out-of-band) legal system?
- latexr 2y ago
  1. Define “so hard”. It is definitely harder to identify someone by having to trawl through all their posts and infer behaviours than simply clicking a button which gives you access to their legal ID, full name, marriage status, parents names, home address, bank account number, phone number, and so forth. Security and privacy aren’t binaries, but spectrums: each wall you put up is a new opportunity for an adversary to give up. 2. Maybe I don’t understand the question, but I don’t see how that’s relevant or true. Social media is routinely used as evidence in court. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/12/30/heres-how-social-media-can-be-used-against-you-in-court/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/12/30/heres-h... https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25738225 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25738225
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >that is, do pseudonyms actually work? If pseudonyms didn't work, no one would be proposing the policy that he proposes. And nearly everyone seems to propose it or some variation of it.

by latexr 2y ago

m2024 2y ago

[dead]

indigo945 2y ago

> Your suggestion won’t solve any problem and will introduce new ones, like making manipulation and censorship easier. This is absolutely untrue for manipulation. Currently, private (both American and Chinese) social media platforms have become mouthpieces of authoritarian propaganda and misinformation. Russian bot farms cooperate with American billionaires to push destabilizing extremist propaganda and suppress moderate voices. And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. But that is not the proposal here: the proposal is to provide an alternative, which guarantees that the opinion you read is, in fact, the opinion of a real (European) person, not the output of an LLM trained on the hateful ramblings of the Yarvins and Dugins of this world. If that's not what you want, you're free to go back to TikTok, X or Facebook. We are in agreement on "chat control" and similar anti-encryption political schemes, but the social media question pertains to public, not private, communications. Signed, Colin Emonds (of Cologne, Germany) A European

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. It wouldn't only update the floodgates, it's rather the idea behind these proposals. :-)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nodoll 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
latexr 2y ago
> Currently, private (both American and Chinese) social media platforms have become mouthpieces of authoritarian propaganda and misinformation. Which is an orthogonal issue. Private social media doing it does not mean government-owned social media wouldn’t. In fact, it is precisely because authoritarians already can see it working that they would salivate at the though. > And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. But that is not the proposal here You’re agreeing with and rebutting things I haven’t said. I don’t think the proposal was to outlaw other forms of social media. I still think the proposal is bad on its own. > which guarantees that the opinion you read is, in fact, the opinion of a real (European) person, not the output of an LLM trained on the hateful ramblings of the Yarvins and Dugins of this world. It guarantees no such thing. There’s nothing stopping that real person from asking an LLM and posting the reply directly. That already happens today. Heck, people confidently post screenshots of LLM conversations as if they were fact even when they’re provably wrong. > If that's not what you want, you're free to go back to TikTok, X or Facebook. I personally don’t use any of those, and neither would I defend them. Again, my argument is those are already bad and OP’s proposal is just as bad and then adds worse things on top.
- indigo945 2y ago
  > It guarantees no such thing. There’s nothing stopping that real person from asking an LLM and posting the reply directly. The point is that it prevents multi-accounting and deliberate astroturfing campaigns. If people personally decide to just trust ChatGPT screenshots as gospel and assume LLM outout as their opinion, that's their own prerogative.

markhahn 2y ago

I guess I have two questions: - do you think it is so hard to track people by their other behavior? that is, do pseudonyms actually work? - isn't harrassment by realnamed actors a failure of the (out-of-band) legal system?

latexr 2y ago
1. Define “so hard”. It is definitely harder to identify someone by having to trawl through all their posts and infer behaviours than simply clicking a button which gives you access to their legal ID, full name, marriage status, parents names, home address, bank account number, phone number, and so forth. Security and privacy aren’t binaries, but spectrums: each wall you put up is a new opportunity for an adversary to give up. 2. Maybe I don’t understand the question, but I don’t see how that’s relevant or true. Social media is routinely used as evidence in court. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/12/30/heres-how-social-media-can-be-used-against-you-in-court/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/12/30/heres-h... https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25738225 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25738225
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>that is, do pseudonyms actually work? If pseudonyms didn't work, no one would be proposing the policy that he proposes. And nearly everyone seems to propose it or some variation of it.