4 ms·

> The new version of NO FAKES requires almost every internet gatekeeper to create a system that will a) take down speech upon receipt of a notice; b) keep down

> The new version of NO FAKES requires almost every internet gatekeeper to create a system that will a) take down speech upon receipt of a notice; b) keep down any recurring instance—meaning, adopt inevitably overbroad replica filters on top of the already deeply flawed copyright filters; c) take down and filter tools that might have been used to make the image; and d) unmask the user who uploaded the material based on nothing more than the say so of person who was allegedly “replicated.” Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement.

dspillett 1y ago
> Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement. Or the sort of thing bigger companies lobby for to make the entry barriers higher for small competition. Regulatory capture like this is why companies above a certain level of size/profit/other tend to swing in favour of regulation when they were not while initially “disrupting”.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  > Regulatory capture like this is why companies above a certain level of size/profit/other tend to swing in favour of regulation when they were not while initially “disrupting”. Exactly. This is the big boy version of "even your petty backyard patio needs a PE stamp" type crap.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- a4isms 1y ago
  To adapt the words of composer Frank Wilhoit: "Crony capitalism consists of but one principle: In-corporations who are protected by regulation, but not bound by it, alongside out-corporations who are bound by regulation, but not protected by it."
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    I love Wilhoit's original, and want to note that he's been active lately on HN as well (<https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit>). His sentiments are pressaged by others, including Adam Smith (1776): Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/> Or some guy named Matthew, somewhat earlier: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. <https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm>
    - Viliam1234 1y ago
      > For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew was a tax collector, this is literally expert advice, not just one of those religious metaphors.
      - dredmorbius 1y ago
        That's not an interpretation I've encountered before. Any credible sources or references you'd care to provide? (Not about Matthew's occupation but the meaning/interpretation of the verse.)
        Viliam1234 1y ago
        I just made it up. Also, Matthew is supposed to quote Jesus rather than give his own advice, and Jesus was not a tax collector.
    - emh68 1y ago
spacecadet 1y ago
Or a system intended to prevent and identify dissidence by labeling anything as "fake".
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
neilv 1y ago
Large companies will, and it becomes a moat to smaller entrants. But it sounds much worse than that: infrastructure for textbook tyranny. Suppress speech of dissidents against the regime, take away their soapboxes and printing presses, demand that the dissident be identified and turned over to the regime, and put fear of sanctions into all who might be perceived by the regime as aiding dissidents through action or inaction.
- imtringued 1y ago
  >Large companies will, and it becomes a moat to smaller entrants. They won't care to implement it. They'll follow the letter of the law, which means they'll aggressively block anything that gets (falsely) reported, but they certainly won't follow its spirit.
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    the spirit is to tell the powers that be who the powerless person is who crossed them, the big companies definitely will follow that spirit. It is the very spirit which moves them.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    Because Big Tech doesn't capitulate with tyrants, of course. It's not like there were billionaires right there next to the President while Elon Musk hit a Nazi salute on stage.
ajross 1y ago
> Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement. This is true. Which is of a piece with EFF's general bent these days. They stopped caring about big issues of internet freedom long ago and are now just a parade of Big Tech Bad headlines. And in an era where (1) Big Tech continues, after several decades, of being really quite a benign steward of society's information and (2) we have a bunch of unsupervised 20-something MAGA bros loading the entirety of the Federal government onto their Macbooks, that seems extremely tone deaf to me. The tech privacy apocalypse is upon us. And the %!@#! EFF is still whining about Meta and ByteDance for its click stream, because like everyone else on the internet that's what they really care about.
- cvz 1y ago
  I don't understand this comment. The fine article is about a proposed law that would allegedly require the implementation of half-baked censorship systems along the same lines as the DMCA. Are you saying that's not a real issue because the EFF also whines about big tech?
  - ajross 1y ago
    I'm saying I'm fed up with the EFF for their silence in the face of genuine disaster, and am treating them like the click farm they've become. Is NO FAKES a bad law? Probably. Do I trust the EFF to tell me that? Not anymore. They were a genuine beacon of rationality and justice in the early internet. They're junk-tier blog spam now. And I find that upsetting, irrespective of the status of AI legislation.
    - Analemma_ 1y ago
      When you find yourself getting more angry at people saying “hey, this is a really bad law” than at the really bad law, I think you need to step back and take some deep breaths, maybe get off the internet for a while. This philosophy is yours is bad for a number of reasons, but I’ll start with the fact that you have essentially constructed a loophole for arbitrarily bad laws to be passed. If you just rage yourself into not caring about bad laws because you’re mad at the people talking about them instead, then when will you ever oppose the bad laws, instead of “getting mad at randos online”? This quickly turns into cynicism and apathy in the face of unlimited cruelty and expansion of government power.
coldtea 1y ago
Also the kind of system that will absolutely be used by large companies where most of online discussion happens to squash whatever the government doesn't like.

dspillett 1y ago

> Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement. Or the sort of thing bigger companies lobby for to make the entry barriers higher for small competition. Regulatory capture like this is why companies above a certain level of size/profit/other tend to swing in favour of regulation when they were not while initially “disrupting”.

potato3732842 1y ago
> Regulatory capture like this is why companies above a certain level of size/profit/other tend to swing in favour of regulation when they were not while initially “disrupting”. Exactly. This is the big boy version of "even your petty backyard patio needs a PE stamp" type crap.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
a4isms 1y ago
To adapt the words of composer Frank Wilhoit: "Crony capitalism consists of but one principle: In-corporations who are protected by regulation, but not bound by it, alongside out-corporations who are bound by regulation, but not protected by it."
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  I love Wilhoit's original, and want to note that he's been active lately on HN as well (<https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FrankWilhoit>). His sentiments are pressaged by others, including Adam Smith (1776): Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/> Or some guy named Matthew, somewhat earlier: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. <https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm>
  - Viliam1234 1y ago
    > For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew was a tax collector, this is literally expert advice, not just one of those religious metaphors.
    - dredmorbius 1y ago
      That's not an interpretation I've encountered before. Any credible sources or references you'd care to provide? (Not about Matthew's occupation but the meaning/interpretation of the verse.)
      - Viliam1234 1y ago
        I just made it up. Also, Matthew is supposed to quote Jesus rather than give his own advice, and Jesus was not a tax collector.
  - emh68 1y ago

spacecadet 1y ago

Or a system intended to prevent and identify dissidence by labeling anything as "fake".

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

neilv 1y ago

Large companies will, and it becomes a moat to smaller entrants. But it sounds much worse than that: infrastructure for textbook tyranny. Suppress speech of dissidents against the regime, take away their soapboxes and printing presses, demand that the dissident be identified and turned over to the regime, and put fear of sanctions into all who might be perceived by the regime as aiding dissidents through action or inaction.

imtringued 1y ago
>Large companies will, and it becomes a moat to smaller entrants. They won't care to implement it. They'll follow the letter of the law, which means they'll aggressively block anything that gets (falsely) reported, but they certainly won't follow its spirit.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  the spirit is to tell the powers that be who the powerless person is who crossed them, the big companies definitely will follow that spirit. It is the very spirit which moves them.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  Because Big Tech doesn't capitulate with tyrants, of course. It's not like there were billionaires right there next to the President while Elon Musk hit a Nazi salute on stage.

ajross 1y ago

> Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement. This is true. Which is of a piece with EFF's general bent these days. They stopped caring about big issues of internet freedom long ago and are now just a parade of Big Tech Bad headlines. And in an era where (1) Big Tech continues, after several decades, of being really quite a benign steward of society's information and (2) we have a bunch of unsupervised 20-something MAGA bros loading the entirety of the Federal government onto their Macbooks, that seems extremely tone deaf to me. The tech privacy apocalypse is upon us. And the %!@#! EFF is still whining about Meta and ByteDance for its click stream, because like everyone else on the internet that's what they really care about.

cvz 1y ago
I don't understand this comment. The fine article is about a proposed law that would allegedly require the implementation of half-baked censorship systems along the same lines as the DMCA. Are you saying that's not a real issue because the EFF also whines about big tech?
- ajross 1y ago
  I'm saying I'm fed up with the EFF for their silence in the face of genuine disaster, and am treating them like the click farm they've become. Is NO FAKES a bad law? Probably. Do I trust the EFF to tell me that? Not anymore. They were a genuine beacon of rationality and justice in the early internet. They're junk-tier blog spam now. And I find that upsetting, irrespective of the status of AI legislation.
  - Analemma_ 1y ago
    When you find yourself getting more angry at people saying “hey, this is a really bad law” than at the really bad law, I think you need to step back and take some deep breaths, maybe get off the internet for a while. This philosophy is yours is bad for a number of reasons, but I’ll start with the fact that you have essentially constructed a loophole for arbitrarily bad laws to be passed. If you just rage yourself into not caring about bad laws because you’re mad at the people talking about them instead, then when will you ever oppose the bad laws, instead of “getting mad at randos online”? This quickly turns into cynicism and apathy in the face of unlimited cruelty and expansion of government power.

coldtea 1y ago

Also the kind of system that will absolutely be used by large companies where most of online discussion happens to squash whatever the government doesn't like.