3 ms·

The problem is narrower and more nuanced than "held accountable": the problem is that the accountability is asymmetric. There's no incentives against algorithmi

The problem is narrower and more nuanced than "held accountable": the problem is that the accountability is asymmetric. There's no incentives against algorithmically deleting good content by error. If you impose large financial and legal risk on one side (type I errors), and basically nothing on the other (type II), a public corporation will very rationally optimize for the incentives you've given them. That means: the cheapest possible moderation, with aggressive filters committing Type II errors all day. Look at how Microsoft GitHub consistently deletes innocent projects without warning, like SymPy, over LLM hallucinations. That moderation style's a direct consequence of the large financial costs of copyright lawsuits. If you introduce similar financial/legal risks in other areas, you should expect similar results.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
KaiserPro 1y ago
> the problem is that the accountability is asymmetric very much so, large companies are not really held accountable for their user's actions, and thats pretty much by design, for example: If you hold a party every saturday, where the people that come along abuse residents in the streets and cause general damage, after the 5th or 6th time, and at about the point where the patrons of your parties are prosecuted, you will face legal penalties for letting it happen again. even if its different people at your party. (under a whole bunch of laws, ranging from asbos to breach of the peace to criminal damage, anti-rave laws, all sort.) If you do that online, as long as you comply with the bare minimum(ie handing over logs), you're free from most legal pain (unless its CSAM, copyrighted or "terrorist" material) I get your point, but thats where the we get into not a problem of the principle, but the execution. As its OFCOM who are doing the implementing, and they really don't have the expertise or leadership to make "good" guidance, we're going to end up with shit.
- perihelions 1y ago
  Oh, the anti-rave laws were a textbook example of unintended consequences: they made it legally fraught to make life-saving harm minimization accessible, since the way the law was drafted, that'd confirm a rave host was "aware of the presence" of drugs—an element of the crime. Likely caused a net increase in drug-overdose deaths. Poorly-thought out, asymmetric incentives: strongly disincentivizes helping people not-die, while failing at disincentivizing creating an environment for easy access to hard drugs.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

KaiserPro 1y ago

> the problem is that the accountability is asymmetric very much so, large companies are not really held accountable for their user's actions, and thats pretty much by design, for example: If you hold a party every saturday, where the people that come along abuse residents in the streets and cause general damage, after the 5th or 6th time, and at about the point where the patrons of your parties are prosecuted, you will face legal penalties for letting it happen again. even if its different people at your party. (under a whole bunch of laws, ranging from asbos to breach of the peace to criminal damage, anti-rave laws, all sort.) If you do that online, as long as you comply with the bare minimum(ie handing over logs), you're free from most legal pain (unless its CSAM, copyrighted or "terrorist" material) I get your point, but thats where the we get into not a problem of the principle, but the execution. As its OFCOM who are doing the implementing, and they really don't have the expertise or leadership to make "good" guidance, we're going to end up with shit.

perihelions 1y ago
Oh, the anti-rave laws were a textbook example of unintended consequences: they made it legally fraught to make life-saving harm minimization accessible, since the way the law was drafted, that'd confirm a rave host was "aware of the presence" of drugs—an element of the crime. Likely caused a net increase in drug-overdose deaths. Poorly-thought out, asymmetric incentives: strongly disincentivizes helping people not-die, while failing at disincentivizing creating an environment for easy access to hard drugs.