There should be no regulatory framework at all. The Christchurch video should have been able to be seen by everyone if they so chose. All of it should be free as in speech. I find discussing the implementation of alternatives anathema.
Youtube, Facebook, etc. are just a stopgap solution for infrastructure that should enable completely distributed and unblockable information by default. The problem is that we've taken too long to move on from them because they're easy. Any time the progress of technology slows down people seek to control how it's used. That this guy is explaining how the regulatory framework should work is a symptom of of this cycle and it needs to be ended or at the very least we need to move on to the next phase.
Seriously, any regulatory framework for the internet is shit and any line of thinking allowing for such shouldn't even be followed. Period.
We’re past the point of debating whether to regulate the Internet. That ship has sailed. It’s painfully obvious that the ease with which a nation-state actor can spread propaganda necessitates some form of regulation for security purposes.
Because the Internet doesn’t belong to one nation, there are many different ideas as to what that regulation needs to look like. The biggest problem in the “everything should be free!” viewpoint is the assumption that all cultures around the world will converge on western democratic values. That‘s honestly a pretty arrogant assumption (though shared by many in the west).
There absolutely needs to be some framework — I’m just not sure the author proposes is the right one. I normally like Ben Thompson’s frameworks, but the categories he proposes are not MECE and very hand-wavy. It’s a good start to thinking about the problem, but there are a lot of business models aside from ad-supported that drive problematic behavior as well.
Whenever I'm reminded that people like you exist I remember why I'm working so hard to build technological barriers that will eliminate the damage your screwed up viewpoints will cause. You are the oppressors. Remember that.
We need regulation, but not in the authoritarian way you propose. We need to prevent any one person or organization from having too big a loudspeaker, and that means maintaining a free-expression attitude and creating regulation that ensures that no one can interfere with that. Your statement is highly ironic because all it does is hand the fucking loudspeaker to the government instead, which as you yourself said, can be any sort of government, including authoritarian ones. You haven't thought this through, and there are people who have done so for a lot longer than you have. Your arrogance in this matter will be your undoing.
This is so true. It is especially important to amplify voices that have experienced the most cultural oppression and erasure. I hope that we will be able to resurrect Neanderthals from dna and and provide them with a natural habitat where they can grow and thrive. My dream is that one day 50% of all tech workers will be Neanderthals and they will make the same wages as Homo sapiens, or more.
> The Christchurch video should have been able to be seen by everyone if they so chose
and it was available anywhere you just had to know where to look/know who to get links from
i dont blame public video hosting companies for caving to public pressure on this matter, it sucks but they chose to act in a way that the reeing public is used to with censored mass entertainment outlets
When you are sitting at your computer, everything you do is voluntary unless it's some kind of clockwork orange situation.
If we ban globally eyelids being held open by mechanical means to force people to watch something, THEN no one will see something that they don't want to.
It should be illegal maybe to let children under a certain age unsupervised on The Whole Internet, to stumble upon scary things.
I am way more disturbed that the Elsagate videos were on blahtube than that events of life and death are posted.
Why are the 9/11 towers falling not censored then, a lot more people were dying in that moment, but for some reason this is a spectacle(key word) no one can turn away from.
And if we have the global means to censor a single file(which is what a video is) then how come these maniacs are setting up huge violent crimes with major hardware right under the noses of the same authorities?
Consistent application of principle, so difficult to find in this world.
When you hear them explain it on TV, the authoritarian solution just sounds so dang sensible, doesn't it?
UGH. I was so excited when I read the thread title, only to be sorely disappointed to realized they're talking about regulating the _wrong_ thing.
We need regulation to keep the web at least moderately open and interoperable. We need regulation to enforce standards and make it possible to jump over the wall of walled gardens.
We're in a sorry state right now in that only email and SMS are open standards for talking to people, and under constant siege. Attempts for new revolutionary decentralization are yet to do a better job than most protocols from the 80s. What if we had regulations to force service providers to provide APIs and interoperability in their services? What if messaging someone on Facebook from Google hangouts was as easy as sending an email?
The balkanization of the web and walled gardens is to me the biggest issue that affects the most people for the worst, and while we constantly talk about the new technologies that could solve the issue if only there was a way to develop them, we ignore (I think often out of unconditioned reflex) that the issue could be fixed in a timely and reasonable manner by bringing the government in with a reasonable framework.
People complain all the time about how Google and Facebook and Netflix and Spotify own all my data and make it impossible to use it outside their platform, yet I never hear people discussing the most obvious solution: just regulate them to make the data interoperable and empower you like you wish all the decentralized technology would enable you to do, if only they had adoption!
> What if we had regulations to force service providers to provide APIs and interoperability in their services? What if messaging someone on Facebook from Google hangouts was as easy as sending an email?
Exactly, the kind of regulation that would promote real competition than silos of shitware built on network effects.
API Enforcement, Net neutrality, Transparency, Free software enforcement, Copy left and privacy regulation are pro-consumer, pro-user, pro-individual and anti-authoritarian. These are the regulations that would promote freedom instead of standing in the way or worse grab the notion of freedom completely.
Stallman has been preaching about it for ages. It is sad that people who fight for regulation don't have faith on the individual, or want to provide the tools for betterment of the individual (a centrally controlled internet with official version of the truth is never the answer).
One point I do lean in on the pro-regulatory side of things. The platforms showing automated feeds/suggestions have to share the same culpability as individual doing it.
i.e. If a goverment deems an individual can't do X, or has to pay Y in damages, then a platform promoting the video actively (hosting it without a searchable link is fine) through automated feeds is culpable of sharing it.
I am not promoting govt regulation, but just saying companies should not be treated as exceptions.
> People complain all the time about how Google and Facebook and Netflix and Spotify own all my data and make it impossible to use it outside their platform, yet I never hear people discussing the most obvious solution: just regulate them to make the data interoperable and empower you like you wish all the decentralized technology would enable you to do, if only they had adoption!
That doesn't address the issue where your personal information is their business, ie. the ad-supported business as discussed in the article. The limits of what's allowable probably needs to be well-understood by all parties.
In the case of Facebook unless it becomes a subscription it does not indeed. In the case of Netflix, Spotify and G Suite it's baked into the subscription already, what the regulation would do is alleviate vendor lock-in.
> The balkanization of the web and walled gardens is to me the biggest issue that affects the most people for the worst, and while we constantly talk about the new technologies that could solve the issue if only there was a way to develop them, we ignore (I think often out of unconditioned reflex) that the issue could be fixed in a timely and reasonable manner by bringing the government in with a reasonable framework.
Balkanization is sadly inevitable — there will be multiple regulatory frameworks that address varying cultural norms around the world.
This is a simple articulation around something I've wondered for a while.
From a regulatory perspective should we be less concerned with regulating the content on the platform (e.g. a single post, copywrited material) and more concerned with regulating the broadcast effect/technology now inherent in all the non-chronological feeds across ad supported social giants (e.g. instagram now put my post in everyone's feed, or trending).
There seems to be more than enough precedent in the US around regulating control over broadcast, pre-internet: Limiting TV and newspaper ownership shares, limiting advertising to children and smoking ads, equal time, decency standards -not advocating, just calling out that these things have happened.
Some of this I think stems from content being carried on lines deemed "common carrier" (I'm no expert), but the gist seems to be the same here. No one said you couldn't make a movie that included a line with the word "Fuck", but you couldn't broadcast that movie into every American home before the 8 o'clock news.
I'm not a staunch defender of social media giants, but this article paints them in an unfair light.
It seems to suggest that FB endorses content like the Christchurch video, merely because the guy posted it on FB live. FB removed the video as fast as they could.
Apart from magical AI that could somehow stop the recording, I really don't know how else FB should have acted.
What they could have done was have an entirely different business model.
Guy sets up super-projector pointed at the moon, lets people submit videos to a website and vote on which ones get projected on the moon. Pretty soon it's playing gore porn. Guy takes it down as soon as he finds out says "oh man sorry about that, don't know what I could have done to stop that", but then turns the projector right back on because every so often it plays an ad and those are paying his bills.
Some things are just a fundamentally bad idea and there's no fixing it. I don't have a great solution for it. I'm pretty sure the entire Internet has proven to be a bad idea, in fact, but like so much technology you can't put it back in the box so now we're stuck with it.
What an oxymoron ? Regulation and Internet. If you regulate it, everyone will leave your regulated network for another parallel open network IPFS anyone.
> everyone will leave your regulated network for another parallel open network IPFS anyone
Maybe that'd be a good thing?
What I wish could happen here in the US is wider private mesh network adoption.
Right now, it exists at a certain level in some cities, but it is something that is relatively unknown, and ultimately it has to connect to the wider internet via commercial carriers, which ultimately limits it.
If it could be completely distributed, with all nodes privately owned - think something like CB radio used to be (of course, there were problems with that from some operators - sigh) - anyone could stick up an antenna and easily become a node on the mesh.
...but in the US, you run into a very big problem: Hopping the "gaps".
In certain areas of the United States (primarily the southwest region, but others exist too) making the hop from one city to the next via independent distributed mesh means is virtually impossible. Either distance or geographic constraints (mountains) hinder the coverage.
The best solution I could think of, that wouldn't require one or multiple wealth benefactors (who would then be in de-facto control of that portion - not what is wanted, I'd imagine), would be mesh nodes in all vehicles, so that you'd have travelling nodes on the highways and elsewhere.
I know it's all a pipe dream; I'm just tired of being so restricted in what I can or cannot do with my "pipe" unless I spend a buttload of money on a "business class" pipe (which my provider may not even allow to my home; plus I bet it would also have certain restrictions as well).
Yeah the article expects you to accept that without question. I'm totally fine with FB removing it from their servers - I would do the same thing. But government interference here would destroy the internet, plain and simple. We can have "nuanced" discussions all day long, but there is no "nuanced" law around what can and cannot exist on the internet.
Youtube, Facebook, etc. are just a stopgap solution for infrastructure that should enable completely distributed and unblockable information by default. The problem is that we've taken too long to move on from them because they're easy. Any time the progress of technology slows down people seek to control how it's used. That this guy is explaining how the regulatory framework should work is a symptom of of this cycle and it needs to be ended or at the very least we need to move on to the next phase.
Seriously, any regulatory framework for the internet is shit and any line of thinking allowing for such shouldn't even be followed. Period.