MyMindIsLikeAnOcean

You see illegal content all the time, even if you won’t acknowledge you do.

They should be compelled to do whatever it takes so illegal content isn’t available on their platforms. There’s absolutely no reason user posts, and especially advertisements need to be available instantaneously. This notion that doomscrolling in real time or that being able to broadcast your message to the entire world instantly is somehow comparable to freedom of speech or speaking in a town square is absurd.

I couldn’t give a single rats ass how much it costs. And no…your ballpark figure is absurd - don’t make some sky is falling guesstimation that’s right out of the argument of the very people that don’t want their profits infringed on. More money on moderation = Less money to buy elections and legislation with. We transitioned from print and broadcasting that, while somehow respecting free speech, was pretty fairly regulated. Those“safe”mediums are all but dead because we allowed these social media companies to successfully lobby to avoid all responsibility for illegal content and communication on their platforms.

I’ll give you a practical example of a microcosm: Bots in online games. Bots could be functionally eliminated for the portion of the profits of any MMO. We know they could be because they were…up until the point they realized it’s more profitable to have them. Because they’re not legally compelled to get rid of bots…they’re actually incentivized to allow a certain portion of their population to be bots because it increases engagement. Why? Because we don’t regulate shit…and they companies are drunk on profits and enshitfying everything because there’s no competition in any sector any more (anti-trust, another agent topic: Activision and eventually Microsoft should have never been permitted to purchase a profitable Blizzard).

Take just advertising…let’s put everything aside and agree that social media companies should be responsible for the fucking advertising they post…just like any broadcaster. We can’t even do that. At any given moment advertisers on every social media platform are bombarding users with anonymous advertisements that break every law in the book…from copyright infringement, to election meddling, to sexually explicit material, to illegal gambling and all corners beyond. We can’t even regulate that. It’s fuckery that’s rotting the world. In real time…because we care more about Zuckerbergs bank account than our society.

The only thing I’m talking about is social Media companies moderating their platforms so there’s zero tolerance on illegal communication. The currently legislated laws in a region.

Currently, in North America, social media companies moderate themselves…typically with user reporting and automation. There’s an hours long gap between infractions and action.

This could be eliminated with proper moderation. I believe this is the bare minimum. The current status quo is the Wild West…children and adults alike are bombarded with illegal content each time they use social media, or the internet at large.

What you’re saying is incoherent.

On one hand you want government mandated tools…on the other you want unlimited freedom.

I just want the content that’s posted on social media platforms to be legal. I don’t know why you’re babbling about restriction of freedom. You want illegal content to be…legal?

What’s annoying is that it works. That’s the world we live in.

We have either boomers who are too plugged into crime shows or whathaveoyou eating up this nonsense…or conspiracy nuts all over the place looking for a fix.

Same shit (even if it’s different) is going on in the Luigi case. Just because they dropped the death penalty doesn’t mean he’s going free.

Yes, and…

The way I understand the evolution of bullet science is that the days are gone when bullets can be used like finger prints because too many cases have been overturned.

The way we should be thinking about this type of forensics is that it can link a bullet to a family of guns ie “this could have been the weapon or this couldn’t have been the weapon” - it’s almost never definitive, in the affirmative.

The headline here could also be “bullet investigation does not rule out Robinson as the shooter”.

If you’re going to report on bullet analysis, you need to also report on the evolution of the science. Which is to say, the way we understand bullet analysis from a show like CSI or something is incorrect. Bullets simply can’t be linked to firearms like fingerprints can be linked to people.

The way I understand the science is that bullet analysis tells us if a bullet is from a family of guns, not a specific gun like it was used in the past. Bullet analysis and be used to rule out a weapon, not to directly tie one to a crime. This article doesn’t tell us the gun was eliminated like it suggests.

I can’t really say it in any more different ways. One last time.

Yes, of course Facebook wants to push unmoderated addictive content on all their users.

But yes, Facebook also loves putting out endless “user tools” so they can push the responsibility off of themselves for the same reason. These tools already exist. Tools are absolutely useless when you’re trying to protect at risk children or people in general…it’s like asking people to be their own doctor.

All social media needs to be regulated at a fundamental level, and that regulation must include each agent being responsible for the content their users post. Putting out more tools so users can block ads or control their kids will make things worse, as the companies continue the arms race for attention. The only people who benefit from tools are helicopter parents and the tech savvy.

It just sounds like you’re a lawyer for Facebook. More of the same…more user-end “tools” that nobody uses and get abandoned, more harm to everyone. Down the well we go.

They should be compelled to…sell less ads? Silly. What do you mean by “tools”? There a gajillion tools that nobody understands or uses…we need more responsibility in the purveyor…not the user. Saying you want tools is the status quo.

Moderation is the only solution. Social media companies should be required, with no exceptions, to follow the laws of the region they operate in. They don’t do that…they put out whatever whenever and take almost no responsibility for what they expose people to.

If social media companies were required to moderate their content…if they were responsible for what’s posted…all problems would go away.

As it stands bad actors use bots to stay one step ahead of automated moderation.

Dude…installing Facebook Purity doesn’t protect you from child predators, what are you even talking about?

Want to know how all social media could simply and easily protect minors, and everybody at large? Hire some fucking moderators. Every social media company should be required to use as many humans as it takes to moderate all content posted on their platforms…everybody problem would be reduced to near zero. What’s happening now is nobody works at META…except at the design, legal and coding level. If you’re a bad actor and you want to post…you use a bot to interact with an automated process, and you’re always one step ahead of the automated process.

I predict this will be tied up in appeals until the day SCOTUS or the executive sniff these suits out.

It will increase the demand, yes.

Taxis aren’t as safe for women as ride-shares because they’re “anonymous”, from the drivers perspective.

You can already choose your driver or passenger. All this is is streamlining something that’s common.

Agreed. Contract work that isn’t actually contract work should be illegal.

Uber doesn’t deserve much credit for this…they’re just streamlining a behaviour that’s already present among their drivers and customers. It’s a business decision.

So your logic is that because it’s theoretically possible for the system to be “gamed”…the option shouldn’t be available for anyone? SMH

Uber aren’t saints…they’re just reacting to behaviour that’s already happening: A customer can already “vet” their driver and choose somebody with lots of ratings and their preferred (declared) gender etc. This option isn’t creating any additional harm…all it’s doing is adding a filter…and therefore a niche for women who want to provide rides to females and vice versa.

A criminal lying about who they are won’t be exasperated or eliminated with this new option. There’s no downside.

Thank for being honest.

My angle is I have a few friends who’ve been assaulted in cabs and Ubers. Yeah…they were smashed and engaging in risky behaviour…but they didn’t deserve what happened. I’m all about harm reduction.

Sure…some edge cases will always game the system…but I also can’t think of a reason not to try to address a problem.

Focus on the content instead of the diss.