I'm genuinely conflicted about it.
It occurs to me to wonder how the algorithms work - if I look at a video
about conspiracy theories on YouTube, for example, am I then presented
with a lot more videos about conspiracy theories next time I visit? I
think the answer to this is probably yes, because I looked at a video of
Trump doing his YMCA dance (which apparently he does quite frequently at
the end of his rallies), thinking about re-using it for satirical
purposes, and now every time I go to YouTube it wants me to look at more
videos of Trump dancing.
I think the algorithms are one of the most insidious and damaging
aspects of Web 2 - instead of genuinely exploring the web and coming
across new things, which I seem to remember we used to do in the early
2000s, we now find ourselves in a commercialised feedback-loop which
presents us over and over again with amplified (and monetized) versions
of whatever beliefs and ideas and interests we had in the first place.
Perhaps there's some mileage in legislating against the algorithms.
Edward
On 08/01/2021 19:16, Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour wrote:
I think some safeguards need to be put into place; if you look at the
propaganda-machine-work in Nazi Germany, it can do terrible harm. But
in the U.S. under Reagen, the fairness doctrine was scrapped, which
meant local news outlets of all sorts could be grabbed up by
opinionated multi-nationals, and you get people like Rush Linbaugh
spreading hatred unchallenged in rural areas - probably the biggest
swatch of territory in the country. That's where "these people" get
their news, unchallenged. It's far-right-wing money. I also think hate
speech might be covered more directly - one of the tshirts at the riot
said in abbreviated form - 6 million is not enough. What do you do
with that?
Best, Alan (mind you I've been censored on YouTube and elsewhere
myself, I think unfairly, so you might make a counter-argument that
it's all in the eye/ear of the beholder. It's an aporia.)
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:07 PM Edward Picot via NetBehaviour
<netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
<mailto:netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org>> wrote:
What do people think - have we reached the point at which social
media
companies should be prosecuted for allowing hate-speech,
incitements to
violence, demonstrable untruths and conspiracy theories to be
uploaded
onto their sites?
Should they be regarded as publishers, and therefore legally
responsible
for their content?
I'm genuinely torn, but I think maybe we've now reached that
point. I'd
be very interested to hear what others think.
Edward
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
<mailto:NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org>
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
/=====================================================/
/directory http://www.alansondheim.org tel 718-813-3285
//email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut
gmail.com <http://gmail.com>/
/=====================================================/
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
