|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On May 12 2017 03:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:18 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power.
Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter.
I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? Does anyone really need the google search results to not be racist? I get people are offended, but can we just learn to ignore that already? One of the largest media providers and companies in the world that provides millions with news and people are supposed to ignore it? Google fixed the issue within a day, to their credit.
Again, why do you want regulations when the law doesn't even have an issue with this? It's not illegal to have mugshots directly associated with Black Girl's Hair, let alone indirectly.
|
On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power.
Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter.
I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort.
Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn.
On May 12 2017 03:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:23 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:18 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? Does anyone really need the google search results to not be racist? I get people are offended, but can we just learn to ignore that already? One of the largest media providers and companies in the world that provides millions with news and people are supposed to ignore it? Google fixed the issue within a day, to their credit. Again, why do you want regulations when the law doesn't even have an issue with this? It's not illegal to have mugshots directly associated with Black Girl's Hair, let alone indirectly.
I didn’t’ say I wanted regulations against that specifically. I said I wanted a discussion about the growth and influence of google, facebook and reddit as modern media companies. And regulations to be updated based on that discussion.
|
On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn.
What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly?
|
On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power.
Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter.
I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort.
Yeah, the search tool has no way of knowing the whole legal backstory of this poor girl. Technically, it is behaving exactly as it should. Also, how did this comment chain go from "citizens united and media and money in politics" to "regulating google search"?
|
On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication.
Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board.
Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly?
I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be.
|
On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 03:23 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:18 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication.
Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board.
Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? Does anyone really need the google search results to not be racist? I get people are offended, but can we just learn to ignore that already? One of the largest media providers and companies in the world that provides millions with news and people are supposed to ignore it? Google fixed the issue within a day, to their credit. Again, why do you want regulations when the law doesn't even have an issue with this? It's not illegal to have mugshots directly associated with Black Girl's Hair, let alone indirectly. I didn’t’ say I wanted regulations against that specifically. I said I wanted a discussion about the growth and influence of google, facebook and reddit as modern media companies. And regulations to be updated based on that discussion.
Technically I believe the porn sites are already breaking the law (copyright infringement), but it's probably impossible for the victim to prosecute without great personal expense especially if the site is foreign owned.
But meanwhile it seems like Google has a pretty strong legitimate fair use claim? They aren't even 'using' the photo, they are just linking to a publicly available image. It's hard to call that illegal without basically ruining everything about everything.
|
|
|
On May 12 2017 03:31 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication.
Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board.
Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. On May 12 2017 03:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 03:23 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:18 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? Does anyone really need the google search results to not be racist? I get people are offended, but can we just learn to ignore that already? One of the largest media providers and companies in the world that provides millions with news and people are supposed to ignore it? Google fixed the issue within a day, to their credit. Again, why do you want regulations when the law doesn't even have an issue with this? It's not illegal to have mugshots directly associated with Black Girl's Hair, let alone indirectly. I didn’t’ say I wanted regulations against that specifically. I said I wanted a discussion about the growth and influence of google, facebook and reddit as modern media companies. And regulations to be updated based on that discussion. Technically I believe the porn sites are already breaking the law (copyright infringement), but it's probably impossible for the victim to prosecute without great personal expense especially if the site is foreign owned. But meanwhile it seems like Google has a pretty strong legitimate fair use claim? They aren't even 'using' the photo, they are just linking to a publicly available image. It's hard to call that illegal without basically ruining everything about everything.
And that is horrible if it can’t be corrected. The same goes for false rape claims, mistaken identity and anything that can “go viral” on the internet and effectively ruin someone’s life. And the sad part is that legal protects make it so most websites don’t need to care. Google can never be held accountable and those porn sites are basically judgment proof.
I think you are right with the fair use and they wouldn’t be held accountable if they took the photo down and took efforts to remove it. Which is why I took the example further that they tried and failed to correct it several times.
|
On May 12 2017 03:21 TheLordofAwesome wrote:http://thehill.com/homenews/house/332868-paul-ryan-rejects-calls-for-special-prosecutor-in-russia-investigationIf you read the article, Ryan is peddling total BS. "I think the intelligence committees are the ones that should do this, because, don’t forget that the methods and sources of our intelligence gathering are also at play here, and we have to be very sensitive so that we don’t compromise that information as well." There is no increased risk of compromise with a special prosecutor. Ryan is not technically lying here I think, but it comes pretty damn close.
I thought he was going to cave. I wonder if it means he's grown some balls or just that the Democrats and media allies have been making such damn fools of themselves that the choice was clear.
|
Except Google fixed the issue less than 24 hrs after it was brought to their attention, if I understand the story correctly.
|
On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:
I didn’t’ say I wanted regulations against that specifically. I said I wanted a discussion about the growth and influence of google, facebook and reddit as modern media companies. And regulations to be updated based on that discussion.
Except, as I've said for every example you've used so far, your issues are entirely legal, first and foremost. Tracking down illegal action on the internet is easy from a technical standpoint, hard from a legal one (getting a warrant). Civil action against someone on the internet is, again, easy, but expensive because of legal costs (going to court and justifying why an individual should be tracked down). Regulating content has to have a legal basis first, to define what should even be removed, before you can even force tech companies to deal with it.
|
On May 12 2017 03:35 Danglars wrote:I thought he was going to cave. I wonder if it means he's grown some balls or just that the Democrats and media allies have been making such damn fools of themselves that the choice was clear.
I believe that Ryan is implicated along with Trump in the scandal, and he's trying to save his own butt by doing everything in his power to prevent charges from being brought.
|
|
|
On May 12 2017 03:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On May 12 2017 03:06 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On May 12 2017 02:36 HalcyonRain wrote:
I can't help but think firing Comey on Tuesday was completely on purpose. Like he decided he was going to fire Comey a long time ago and he was just saving it for a time where it would make the media go into a frenzy(cuz that's what gets him off). So he fires him 2 days before he's supposed to appear in the Senate Intelligence Committee's annual World Wide Threat hearing, in which he probably would have talked about Russia. This is also after a rumor about Comey asking for increased funding.
I dunno, I probably read too many books.
Either way the Legislative branch will grind to a halt while they're dealing with Trump's constant "distractions". Well maybe not a halt, but certainly very slow. How about the timing a day before Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with Tillerson and then Trump? But right now the Left needs no special encouragement; they do fine on their own paranoid inventions. I'd like tax reform and the border wall sooner rather than later, but I can't help liking the idea of some legislative gridlock. You can't grow government as fast when no progress is made on big spending projects and additional entitlements. I am extraordinarily curious to find out what you think over the next few days, Danglars, as warrants get executed. Wait a second, you're saying the Russia investigation is continuing even after Comey was fired? Oh god, this totally contradicts me when I said three times the Russia investigation will continue. As in no coverup will happen from this. No no, I didn't mean that you thought it was going to stop. I mean that I want to see your reactions to what the warrants uncover. Because if we have seen this much Russian shit already with publically available info, what is the level of the stuff about to come out? I wonder just how far you will continue to defend Trump.
I'm waiting for the FBI report and whether the justice department charges guys like Flynn. A lot is up in the air right now. All I know is Trump's questionable personnel decisions and bad decision making from some of his campaign staff. Are you hoping for evidence Trump had a pipeline to Putin and exchanged favors for hacks?
|
On May 12 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Except Google fixed the issue less than 24 hrs after it was brought to their attention, if I understand the story correctly.
Yes, but what if they didn’t fix it correctly? How many times can they screw up before they are held liable? Should there be guidelines for both sides? Should there be a system nationwide for people who want their information removed from a search that has nothing to do with them? Can we make with the tech industry?
These are all the questions I ask. Not how to hold Google accountable, but when should they be accountable. When a server provider becomes the go to service for storing child pornography because they ask no question and don’t look at the content, when should that be something that is illegal(cloudfare, resent story).
|
Question: Is Spicer permanently gone now?
|
On May 12 2017 03:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:
I didn’t’ say I wanted regulations against that specifically. I said I wanted a discussion about the growth and influence of google, facebook and reddit as modern media companies. And regulations to be updated based on that discussion. Except, as I've said for every example you've used so far, your issues are entirely legal, first and foremost. Tracking down illegal action on the internet is easy from a technical standpoint, hard from a legal one (getting a warrant). Civil action against someone on the internet is, again, easy, but expensive because of legal costs (going to court and justifying why an individual should be tracked down). Regulating content has to have a legal basis first, to define what should even be removed, before you can even force tech companies to deal with it.
All the things you said are true. I do not believe it needs to be that difficult and I think there should be a renewed discussion about the internet in general. From liability of sites like google and facebook to how hard it is for someone to address death threats made against them.
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be.
Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books.
It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms.
|
On May 12 2017 03:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Question: Is Spicer permanently gone now?
What are you talking about? He's quite clearly attending them using his new hide in plain sight tactics.
Here you can see him on the left:
![[image loading]](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/igz2RMoLljjo/v0/488x-1.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
