tiphareth: для борьбы с политическим экстремизмом

Настроение:	sick
Музыка:	Особый Отдел - По Ра
Entry tags:	.cn, censorship, usa, youtube

для борьбы с политическим экстремизмом
Адова жесть
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-youtube-takes-down-xinjiang-videos-forces-rights-group-seek-2021-06-25/
https://www.engadget.com/youtube-takes-down-xinjiang-human-rights-videos-195316297.html
https://www.perthnow.com.au/technology/youtube-takes-down-groups-xinjiang-videos-c-3227679
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/24/1027048/youtube-xinjiang-censorship-human-rights-atajurt/

Очередной скандал насчет ужасов цензуры на Ютюбе.
В этот раз цензуре подвергли анти-китайский канал
с рассказами жертв полицейского террора, за "участие
в организованной преступности" и "нарушения приватности."
Походу, на Ycombinator рассказывают</a> (со ссылкой на
Петера Тиля, миллиардера-либертарианца-трампоида и
участника совета директоров ФСБука), что в ФСБуке
большинство модераторов занимают про-китайские
позиции, и участвуют в цензуре контента по заказам CCP.

We're back at the platform vs. publisher debate... I think
this should be a either-or thing, that every webpage
chooses. Then, you're either a platform, and can only
remove directly illegal stuff (or when told by the courts
to do so), or a publisher, decide what content you publish
and what you remove, and then carry the full
responsibility for that content.

The current situation, where pages like youtube can act as
publishers, and cherry pick what they keep/promote and
what they remove, and still keep all the platform
protections is really bad, mostly for the users.

Все так, по факту, Гуглу, ФСБуку и прочей пиздобратии
политическая цензура вполне себе запрещена, потому как
они получают защиту от преследований за контент как
нейтральная платформа, по типу почтового севера, хотя
никакой нейтральной платформой не являются. Но Байден
и демократическая партия в целом настаивают на
усилении цензуры (и без того целиком односторонней), так
никаких анти-цензурных санкций при нынешней власти не
будет, ну и вряд ли когда-нибудь будут. Скорее, наоборот,
отменят первую поправку, по крайней мере байденовские
заместители по масс-медиа много говорят о том, что
необходимо ее отменить, для борьбы с политическим
экстремизмом.

Привет

(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)

tiphareth
2021-06-27 22:19 (ссылка)

да хуле разницы, вот новый помощник
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-taibbi-a-biden-appointees-troubling-views-on-the-first-amendment
они там все такие вообще, что первая поправка, что
вторая, для них это натурально анафема

A Biden appointee's troubling views on the First Amendment

Timothy Wu wonders if the First Amendment is 'obsolete,'
and believes in 'returning the country to the kind of
media environment that prevailed in the 1950s'

While the liberal tradition of the party tilts toward
antitrust action, the new, more authoritarian form of
progressivism currently gaining traction is tempted by the
power these companies wield, and instead of breaking these
firms up, may be more likely to seek to appropriate their
influence.

You can see this mentality in the repeated exchanges
between Congress and Silicon Valley executives. An example
is the celebrated October 23, 2019 questioning of Mark
Zuckerberg by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a House
Financial Services Committee hearing. The congresswoman,
as staunch a believer in the new approach to speech as
there is in modern Democratic Party politics, repeatedly
asks Zuckerberg questions like, "So, you won't take down
lies or you will take down lies?" and "Why you label the
Daily Caller, a publication well-documented with ties to
white supremacists, as an official fact-checker for
Facebook?"

Grasping that everyone who's ever thought about speech
issues throughout our history has been concerned with the
publication of falsehoods, incitement to violence, libel,
hate speech, and other problems, the issue here isn't the
what, but the who. The question isn't whether or not you
think the Daily Caller should be fact-checking, but
whether you think it's appropriate to leave Mark
Zuckerberg in charge of naming anyone at all a
fact-checker. AOC doesn't seem to be upset that Zuckerberg
has so much authority, but rather that he's not using it
to her liking.

This is where the paradox comes in. Every time a
Democratic Party-aligned politician or activist says he or
she wants the tech companies to take action to prevent,
say, the dissemination of fake news, one has to realize
that it makes little sense for those same actors to then
turn around and advocate for breakups of those same
firms. Anyone genuinely interested in clamping down on
"harmful" speech would consciously or unconsciously want
the landscape as concentrated as possible, because an
information bottleneck makes controlling unwanted speech
easier.

This is the subtext of those constant congressional
demands that tech platforms fix the "problems" of
unfettered speech. We have another round of such hearings
coming this week. The House Energy and Commerce Committee
will be having Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, and
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in to discuss, "Disinformation
Nation: Social Media's Role in Promoting Extremism and
Misinformation."

The Committee's ranking members and subcommittee chairs,
Frank Pallone, Jr. of New Jersey, Mike Doyle of
Pennsylvania, and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, are adopting
the now-familiar line of pushing to hold the tech firms
"accountable" for their speech environments, saying
congress "must begin the work of changing incentives
driving social media companies to allow and even promote
misinformation and disinformation."

Do these members of congress, or thinkers like Wu, want to
break up these monopolies, or harness them? To date, the
answer has run decidedly in one direction. Previous
congressional hearings involving tech CEOs - I'm thinking
particularly of an October, 2017 hearing of the Senate
Judiciary Committee in which Hawaii's Mazie Hirono
demanded that the platforms come up with plans to keep bad
actors who "sow discord" from manipulating social media -
already resulted in an overt partnership between
Washington and Silicon Valley over "content moderation"
decisions. The only question is, will that partnership
become more expansive, as politicians become increasingly
tempted by the power of these companies?

As Stoller puts it, the Democrats have turned the tech
battle into something like a Lord of the Rings contest,
where the fight ends up being over the "one ring" of
speech control. Others point out that the situation for
new government appointees in the Biden administraiton will
be complicated by the input of the intelligence services,
whose point of view on this issue is clear and absolute:
they love the bottleneck power of the tech monopolies and
would oppose any effort to dilute it.

Wu's comment about "returning... to the kind of media
environment that prevailed in the 1950s" is telling. This
was a disastrous period in American media that not only
resulted in a historically repressive atmosphere of
conformity, but saw all sorts of glaring social problems
covered up or de-emphasized with relative ease, from Jim
Crow laws to fraudulent propaganda about communist
infiltration to overthrows and assassinations in foreign
countries.

The wink-wink arrangement that big media companies had
with the government persisted through the early sixties,
and enabled horribly destructive lies about everything
from the Bay of Pigs catastrophe to the Missile Gap to go
mostly unchallenged, for a simple reason: if you give
someone formal or informal power to choke off lies,
theythemselvesmay now lie with impunity. It’s Whac-a-Mole:
in an effort to solve one problem, you create a much
bigger one elsewhere, incentivizing official deceptions.

That 1950s period is attractive to modern politicians
because it was a top-down system. This was the era in
which worship of rule by technocratic experts became
common, when the wisdom of the “Best and the Brightest”
was unchallenged. A yearning to return to those times runs
through these new theories about speech, and is prevalent
throughout today’s Washington, a city that seems to think
everything should be run by people with graduate degrees.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

kaledin
2021-06-27 23:22 (ссылка)

>fraudulent propaganda about communist infiltration

Not so fradulent, actually. Хотя русофилу Тэйбби ну страх как не хочется этого признавать.

А так-то, ну, он сказал, она сказала. Вон выше оно открытым текстом говорит, что хочет резбробить ФСБбук. Вскрытие покажет.

>everything should be run by people with graduate degrees

Это уж как минимум, хотя этого не хватит. А "простой народ" и прочие симулякры нахуй, нахуй. Народолюбие тяжкий грех.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)

	(Анонимно) 2021-06-28 00:17 (ссылка)
	спасибо за наводку, про его отношение к free speech чот не подумал погуглить вот длинная статья, на которую taibbi сослался: >Is the First Amendment Obsolete? (2017) https://knightcolumbia.org/content/tim-wu-first-amendment-obsolete (Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	(Анонимно) 2021-06-28 16:10 (ссылка)
	>Is the First Amendment Obsolete? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines (Ответить) (Уровень выше)

(Читать комментарии) -