Submitted by dustofoblivion123 t3_1194caa in Futurology
odinlubumeta t1_j9ljbyq wrote
Reply to comment by wbsgrepit in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
No it promoted the content. To use your analogy if someone walked into Walgreens and the cashier said hey there is a meeting in the back you should attend (but doesn’t know what the meeting is about). And the person goes back and a bunch of Nazi are trying to convince people to kill Jews and the person organizes with others and does it. It’s a grey area because it has to be determined if Walgreens is at fault for pointing the guy to a group it didn’t know anything about.
And it matters because hate groups have trouble recruiting people in public places but not the internet. The rise of this problem is definitely be use of the internet. And the ability to organize is also made much easier because of the internet. So the question becomes do you allow more freedom at the cost of more death. You may think freedom should always be the case, but their are plenty of times freedom is restricted. From things like nuclear weapons to not allowing people to bring weapons into certain places. The reason to not allow such things is often how people will use them or potential to use them. Again it is not a black and white area.
Simonic t1_j9lmth0 wrote
Except from my understanding, YouTube/Google didn't expressly "promote" it. The algorithm suggested it. Under that, your analogy doesn't exactly hold up. Unless, you add to the cashier "I see that you've been attending and checking on a few of these meetings -- there's one in the back if you'd like to go check it out."
The problem here is that they're taking a flame thrower to solve the problem, when all they need is a match. And the reaction from the internet will be to simply curtail anything/everything that could get them a lawsuit. Many sites would simply cease to exist because they can't moderate millions of interactions.
And sites like YouTube would become unbearable without an algorithm.
odinlubumeta t1_j9loo9d wrote
Okay add the caveat if you want (it was a take on the other person’s analogy). You think that somehow complete negates the argument?
That’s why it is a grey area. How responsible should they be. What do they need to do? They will need to address it and answer it.
It is also not the job of lawmakers to make sure YouTube is bearable. That’s the worst way to approach a law. If your business can’t adapt to the laws then it should go out of business. It is weird to argue otherwise. Apply it in any business. The safety and well being should come first before entertainment. At least it should in the non-Roman gladiator days.
Simonic t1_j9lsvvk wrote
YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, just about all of these "general services" that allow third party participation are on the chopping block. If the protections granted by Section 230 are removed/diminished we have a far more restrictive internet.
Another unintended consequence would be making it harder to track the "bad people." If you remove their presence from social platforms, they will continue to operate -- just harder to track. Which was one of the unintended consequences of the law against websites that were targeted for human trafficking. They became a lot harder for law enforcement to track down.
odinlubumeta t1_j9lw5ji wrote
Again you don’t do this for any other business. You are ardent in your defense because you like one of them. That’s not how laws should be written. Again if they are incapable of adapting then they shouldn’t be in business. And I have yet to see you argue that. Just that they would go away.
We have plenty of history before the internet existed where they caught bad guys. We have plenty of mass shooting with by guys with red flags on the internet that weren’t stopped. The FBI adapting to the times is not an argument that it would worse if it were removed. That’s you speculating. And if we just wanted it to be easier for the government to find bad people we could allow them without a warrant to full access of peoples phones and computers. Laws are made with both idea of freedoms and the ideas of limits in those freedoms.
I am not saying what the laws should be by the way, I am saying that you cannot argue that things must stay the same simply because a company might go out of business or it is harder to track bad people.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9me40y wrote
If we lose an important service because of the companies going out of business that seems like a reasonable argument.
Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9mibkp wrote
If its a service and passing laws threatens to affect the quality of life of the American people it should be nationalized and be a public utility.
So no really not a good argument
MINIMAN10001 t1_j9mve8t wrote
I mean nothing is more critical and endangering of life than healthcare yet the entire US political system is strictly against enacting nationalized healthcare.
Literally a matter of life and death and the whole nation turns a blind eye.
Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9n3599 wrote
No arguments from me. My state has very limited single payer Healthcare, and people always say it's the absolute best healthcare they've ever gotten, and that they miss it when they make too much for it. Which is basically just having a job. At all.
wbsgrepit t1_j9qeu15 wrote
What state is this -- there is not an active single payer Healthcare sate in the USA as far as I know. Vermont passed a very neutered version of one in 2011 but it was disabled in 2014 because there was not enough power at the state level to force the cost savings and the cost became untenable.
Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9qn87l wrote
Oregon. We've got two versions essentially, one for poor people and one for old people. Both are absolutely fantastic, and the only problem with the poor one is the drop-off limit should be like, tripled.
wbsgrepit t1_j9qobgm wrote
ahh thats not really single payer thats state funded Medicare/Medicaid plans -- similar in concept but not in scope or savings (where single payer fully locks out players and forces them to negotiate costs or lose the market access).
Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9qozlw wrote
We do actually have some litigation in that direction, but it's all on the level of financial incentives rather than a true lockout. The incentives are strong enough and Healthcare companies are greedy enough that everyone generally plays ball, though
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9ml09n wrote
What if nationalising it would make it run much worse? Govs are usually not very innovative.
Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9mm3v1 wrote
And what if unicorns ate rainbows?
See I can do non-sequiters too
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9mz6en wrote
Usually nationalising something like that wouldn't work because incentives aren't there to innovate and compete for the gov.
Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9n2uvt wrote
Can you take a moment, read what you wrote, and actually fucking think about it for a second?
We're in this situation because the "incentives to innovate and compete" directly lead to YouTube recommending Isis training videos to people susceptible to wanting to join Isis because THAT MADE YOUTUBE THE MOST MONEY.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9n5lff wrote
These services also provide immense value.
odinlubumeta t1_j9mii9b wrote
First it’s entertainment. How people can just publicly put entertainment over human life’s to me is so odd.
Second why can’t they adapt? We don’t know what the rules would be but we have all these algorithms and machine learning and soon to be AI, but these billion (soon to be trillion) dollar companies can find a way to adapt?
And yes it’s a stupid argument if your point is that corporations that can’t adapt shouldn’t come to an end. Are they also too big too fail? Seriously I want you to make an argument that a company shouldn’t have to adapt to the laws and have them written around the biggest companies.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9mkw82 wrote
People put entertainment over human lives every single day. Every action you do is a trade off. Any time you spend on entertainment could be spent on helping saving lives.
I am just saying that it should be considered based on trade offs.
odinlubumeta t1_j9mos8f wrote
I am not sure I understand your point. You are saying that the lawmakers should consider entertainment value when writing the laws?
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9myv2z wrote
Yes, but in general all umbrella of different values. Since it is also practicality and productivity. Search and auto recommenders and other types of AI systems.
odinlubumeta t1_j9n3gye wrote
I never said to ignore everything than safety. I said you don’t make laws based on keep a few companies (that can’t adapt) afloat.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9n5qc2 wrote
The issue is that no company could provide such a service if there is no protection for algorithmic content filtering or suggestions.
odinlubumeta t1_j9n9xlq wrote
I don’t believe that they couldn’t survive without their current algorithm. Google and Facebook were profitable well before they came up with their current algorithms. Advertisers aren’t just going to disappear. But let’s say they just couldn’t, then they absolutely should go away and let a new company that can figure out how to survive under whatever laws exist. If you have a void someone will find a way to profit off it. You don’t have a viable business if you can only survive with one set of laws. Laws have changed so many times since Americas founding. Adapt.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9ncx0u wrote
YouTube for example wouldn't be what it is now. It would affect the whole ecosystem of different things, people livelihoods, because so much depends on those things. Content creators for discovery etc. You wouldn't be able to have personalised experience in YouTube or anywhere with third party content. And Reddit for that matter.
I for one want to have personalised content.
I hate the times of curated content like TV was or otherwise. I want to view content on demand, created by anyone and what is relevant to me.
But pretty sure it is going to be ruled in Google's favour anyway because of the sheer impracticality.
odinlubumeta t1_j9nksk5 wrote
Again you are arguing for things you like or it seems your needs. YouTube existed before it had an algorithm. You act as if this stuff can’t exist without it’s very predatory ad algorithm. People would also adapt. It’s a poor argument. There are technologies that will come that don’t currently exist and you will adapt to them, but giant corporations can’t?
And you are also arguing we can’t make new laws because content creators would either have to evolve or go away? You know we once had a giant book industry. Most people who worked in them had to find new jobs. We certainly don’t make laws to keep everything static.
I am sure it will go Googles way. They have a massive lobby and billions to spend. That’s not the argument. The fact that your whole argument seems to be that you like where things are is a poor argument. The southerners loved having slaves and change was so hard for them that they literally went to war to try to keep things the way they lived. That’s not a good argument then and it isn’t now. You don’t make laws for selfish wants.
MINIMAN10001 t1_j9mlokb wrote
I believe the same standards which DMCA falls under should be the same standards held here. Follow safe harbor protections about taking action on things that you learn about but are not required to seek out malfeasance actively to maintain your personal protection over other people's use of unauthorized copyright content on your platform.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments