The proposals in here: Label bot accounts as such, do more to identify anonymous accounts. Put punishments in place for platforms that fail to prevent re-uploading of content previously removed...
The proposals in here:
Label bot accounts as such, do more to identify anonymous accounts.
Put punishments in place for platforms that fail to prevent re-uploading of content previously removed for harassment.
A vague idea of implementing the 'right to be forgotten' on the web.
Some fairly weak tea, all things considered but at least someone's thinking about how to solve this issue
Indeed. Remember that the majority of our elected (and I use that term loosely) representatives don't even use email. Let that sink in for a minute. It means that the internet is an out-of-context...
Indeed. Remember that the majority of our elected (and I use that term loosely) representatives don't even use email.
Let that sink in for a minute. It means that the internet is an out-of-context problem for most of them. That literally guarantees the legislation will be a disaster... even without the lobbying mucking things up.
Does anybody use email nowadays? Christ on a Harley, I can't even get my wife to email me. I kinda miss getting email from actual people, instead of "important messages" from...
It means that the internet is an out-of-context problem for most of them. That literally guarantees the legislation will be a disaster... even without the lobbying mucking things up.
Does anybody use email nowadays? Christ on a Harley, I can't even get my wife to email me. I kinda miss getting email from actual people, instead of "important messages" from "no-reply@capitalistpigs.com" and the like.
Let that sink in for a minute. It means that the internet is an out-of-context problem for most of them. That literally guarantees the legislation will be a disaster... even without the lobbying mucking things up.
At this point, I'd rather see Congress fuck with the internet than legislate in areas where they can do real harm.
I think we need a solution to help congress out. Perhaps a three joint minimum for the house, and a three drink minimum for the senate? It'd certainly make C-SPAN more interesting.
I think we need a solution to help congress out.
Perhaps a three joint minimum for the house, and a three drink minimum for the senate? It'd certainly make C-SPAN more interesting.
Inside that article is a link to the source with much more detail: https://www.axios.com/mark-warner-google-facebook-regulation-policy-paper-023d4a52-2b25-4e44-a87c-945e73c637fa.html
It'd show up in the "Topic Log" over there along with reasons. ---> You're probably wondering why that right sidebar is even here on the comment threads, since it's so empty right now. It won't be...
It'd show up in the "Topic Log" over there along with reasons. --->
You're probably wondering why that right sidebar is even here on the comment threads, since it's so empty right now. It won't be empty forever. ;)
Oh, please. I can barely tell the difference between a right-winger on Twitter and a Palestinian suicide bomber. They're both equally hungry for martyrdom, so the only real difference is that the...
With the way people are policing twitter now and looking for anyone to throw under the social justice bus.
Oh, please. I can barely tell the difference between a right-winger on Twitter and a Palestinian suicide bomber. They're both equally hungry for martyrdom, so the only real difference is that the right-wingers are too chickenshit to die for their cause.
People are already beginning to limit what they say on social media.
Good. Maybe corporate social media will finally die its long-overdue death as a result. It's not like MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Tumblr actually made the Web a better place.
@Deimos I would be interested to hear how you feel about this subject. I know it's not technically your government, but it would obviously effect us all.
I haven't read the actual PDF, but in general I feel like this sort of thing is (somewhat) well-meaning but so clueless towards the actual details of implementing any changes that it would be...
I haven't read the actual PDF, but in general I feel like this sort of thing is (somewhat) well-meaning but so clueless towards the actual details of implementing any changes that it would be completely unrealistic anyway. The issues that they seem to be concerned about definitely are important ones, but approaches like "require bots to be labeled as bots" fall apart as soon as you get past the very surface level.
Overall, I don't know if it's a situation that can ever really be solved through regulation. Regulation moves so slowly, technology changes so quickly, and so much of the regulation is done by people that don't even have a strong understanding of what they're regulating.
I think this is inevitable. With the way people are policing twitter now and looking for anyone to throw under the social justice bus. People are already beginning to limit what they say on social...
I think this is inevitable. With the way people are policing twitter now and looking for anyone to throw under the social justice bus. People are already beginning to limit what they say on social media.
People limit what they say all the time when speaking in person, over the phone, etc. Why should social media and the internet be any different? One idea that I'd love to see go away is that...
People are already beginning to limit what they say on social media.
People limit what they say all the time when speaking in person, over the phone, etc. Why should social media and the internet be any different?
One idea that I'd love to see go away is that there's "real life" and then there's "the internet" and different rules of civility apply just because you're staring at a screen and not directly at another human being.
The proposals in here:
Some fairly weak tea, all things considered but at least someone's thinking about how to solve this issue
Indeed. Remember that the majority of our elected (and I use that term loosely) representatives don't even use email.
Let that sink in for a minute. It means that the internet is an out-of-context problem for most of them. That literally guarantees the legislation will be a disaster... even without the lobbying mucking things up.
Does anybody use email nowadays? Christ on a Harley, I can't even get my wife to email me. I kinda miss getting email from actual people, instead of "important messages" from "no-reply@capitalistpigs.com" and the like.
At this point, I'd rather see Congress fuck with the internet than legislate in areas where they can do real harm.
I think we need a solution to help congress out.
Perhaps a three joint minimum for the house, and a three drink minimum for the senate? It'd certainly make C-SPAN more interesting.
Maybe feed them the fumes through the HVAC system? Get everybody stoned?
I'm only partly joking. When you are that high, or that drunk, lying becomes very difficult. :P
I've been that high, and that drunk. Lying is easy, The hard part is keeping your lies consistent.
Inside that article is a link to the source with much more detail:
https://www.axios.com/mark-warner-google-facebook-regulation-policy-paper-023d4a52-2b25-4e44-a87c-945e73c637fa.html
... and this is why title and link editing will be useful features in the future. ;)
As long as eveyone who voted or commented on it was notified!
It'd show up in the "Topic Log" over there along with reasons. --->
You're probably wondering why that right sidebar is even here on the comment threads, since it's so empty right now. It won't be empty forever. ;)
Oh yeah, I added some tags the other day and noticed that it wasn’t empty anymore.
Oh, please. I can barely tell the difference between a right-winger on Twitter and a Palestinian suicide bomber. They're both equally hungry for martyrdom, so the only real difference is that the right-wingers are too chickenshit to die for their cause.
Good. Maybe corporate social media will finally die its long-overdue death as a result. It's not like MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Tumblr actually made the Web a better place.
@Deimos
I would be interested to hear how you feel about this subject. I know it's not technically your government, but it would obviously effect us all.
I haven't read the actual PDF, but in general I feel like this sort of thing is (somewhat) well-meaning but so clueless towards the actual details of implementing any changes that it would be completely unrealistic anyway. The issues that they seem to be concerned about definitely are important ones, but approaches like "require bots to be labeled as bots" fall apart as soon as you get past the very surface level.
Overall, I don't know if it's a situation that can ever really be solved through regulation. Regulation moves so slowly, technology changes so quickly, and so much of the regulation is done by people that don't even have a strong understanding of what they're regulating.
And that is when it ends up being written by lobbyists.
I think this is inevitable. With the way people are policing twitter now and looking for anyone to throw under the social justice bus. People are already beginning to limit what they say on social media.
People limit what they say all the time when speaking in person, over the phone, etc. Why should social media and the internet be any different?
One idea that I'd love to see go away is that there's "real life" and then there's "the internet" and different rules of civility apply just because you're staring at a screen and not directly at another human being.
I apologize for this low effort comment, but I agree with you 100%.