SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the seven-words-you-can't-say-on-the-internet? dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The Internet can be an ugly place — one where the mere act of expressing an opinion can result in a barrage of name-calling, harassment and sometimes threats of violence.
Nearly half of U.S. Internet users say they have experienced such intimidation; a third say they have resisted posting something online out of fear, according to the nonprofit Data and Society Research Institute. Women, particularly young women and women of color, are disproportionately targeted.
Now Google is zeroing in on the problem. On Thursday, the company publicly released an artificial intelligence tool, called Perspective, that scans online content and rates how "toxic" it is based on ratings by thousands of people.
For example, you can feed an online comment board into Perspective and see the percentage of users that said it was toxic. The toxicity score can help people decide whether they want to participate in the conversation, said Jared Cohen, president of Jigsaw, the company's think tank (previously called Google Ideas). Publishers of news sites can also use the tool to monitor their comment boards, he said.
[...] Google's troll-fighting efforts trail that of other tech companies and nonprofit groups. Earlier this month, Twitter — which has developed a reputation as a playground for abuse — launched new tools to cut on trolling.
[...] Asked whether the site could result in censoring free speech, Cohen said that the software tool wasn't intended to bypass human judgment, but to flag "low-hanging fruit" that could then be passed on to human moderators.
Because speech should only be free if it's polite and you agree with it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Friday February 24 2017, @04:15PM
1. sorry, i am an ABSOLUTIST on free speech; for one reason, because it is THE bedrock right upon which all other rights depend... i know that is not a popular (thus 'correct') opinion, because FAR TOO MANY people (as evidenced by this article/issue) are more than willing to sacrifice ALL OF OUR (NOT just theirs!) free speech so that they don't have to hear 'icky' things...
2. that is problematic, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to tell: one person's 'icky', is another person's laff riot...
3. you have the right to NOT be assaulted; you do NOT have the right to NOT be insulted...
4. i will leave you with this, as it is universal, timeless, and spot on:
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING...
just y'day, was with a buddy who did me a favor, what did i say to him after he did me that above-and-beyond favor ? 'You fucking bastard, I hate you so much.'
so, going by those 'bad words' shouldn't he have left sobbing and going to the PC police ? ? ? uh, no, he laughed and asked about if we were getting together next week when i had some time off...
are there ANY real human beings left who make up all these stupid society 'rules' and shit, or are they all reptilian shape-shifters ? ? ?
(Score: 4, Informative) by weeds on Friday February 24 2017, @05:06PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...
Emphasis mine.
Private companies:Soylentnews, Google, CNN etc. can do anything they want.
Feel free to start up your own News, Opinion, Aggregator, Blog, etc. and edit it anyway you like. That's freedom of the press.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Friday February 24 2017, @06:51PM
So, Google can do "anything they want", huh? Let's examine your premise a bit.
First, censorship can happen on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Just because the Constitution forbids only the Federal government (and, by extension in later amendments as well as by state government Constitutions, state governments) from creating laws to censor speech, doesn't mean that what Google is doing here (and Facebook, Twitter, et.al.) isn't censorship. It is. Let's be clear about that. These companies are engaging in censorship, and they can do a great deal of it. If you're unclear just how pervasive it can be, here is a primer for you [usnews.com].
Next question, can they really do anything they want? Google and other ISPs have certain protections from torts (lawsuits) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law. It basically says that sites like Google cannot be held responsible for user-generated content hosted or available from their site or services. That's a HUGE benefit provided to these companies, that individuals do not get. But, the more an operator edits or manages the user content on their site, the more they expose themselves to being liable for that content.
It leads one to wonder: If government has provided this awesome protection from liability to Google, wouldn't it be the responsibility of government to ensure they are providing an open platform (that is, NOT engaging in damaging censorship). The censorship Google engages in is certainly damaging. There are many cases, and many lawsuits. In Europe and other places with less protections for free speech, Google must comply with guidelines that require then go censor content, and they do just that. Governments have recognized that Google is so large and so pervasive that it is one of the few companies they can go to that can effectively censor content in their country. So clearly Google is much more than just some private entity among a large set of competitors. Using their "malicious website" lists, they can basically censor content at user's client computers.
Think about something else. The US government imposes a large number of regulations on businesses. Using the "public accommodation" definition, business are banned from discrimination, are required to accommodate the needs of the disabled, provide specific services for patrons on an equal basis, and much more. The FCC requires broadcasters to submit ways that they are of benefit to the community. We have common carrier rules that prohibit censorship over some communication channels. In many ways, Google is identical to a common carrier, but with even greater influence over communications.
With only 6 corporations controlling most of the media, and only 3 companies controlling most of the Internet, I think it's time we were a little more realistic about what is happening and what can be done about it. These companies can control the narrative and basically mind-control vast portions of the public.
Do we really want to just throw up our hands and declare "Well they're private companies they can do anything they want?" Even when the result could be controlling the opinions and minds of most of the country?
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 24 2017, @08:33PM
That's pretty much the backpage fight: Immune if just publishing, even including filtering/censoring, liable if actively editing.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Tuesday February 28 2017, @02:02PM
All good points.
You can call it censorship. The solution, in my view is not to is not to tell them they can't control their own publishing machine, but to educate people on how the process works and what they are reading. The problem is that someone runs off to MartiansAreAmongUs.com, reads about how to recognize a Martian and then does something stupid.
I agree that sites that allow for 3rd parties to publish on them should not be held liable for what is published. If they were, you would be forcing them to edit/censor the content and then holding them up for it. Not a good strategy. The control should be, once they do edit the content, then they are liable for what it has in it. They take ownership of it.
If the soylentnews.org editors edit this post to say "You... are... stupid." Now its their post and not mine.
There are many more than six places to get your news. Newspapers all over the world have web sites. I think the responsibility is with the reader. If one thinks FOX news is an unreliable source for news, don't read it. Same for CNN. Try der Spiegel (English version), the choices are pretty vast.
If anyone is concerned that there just aren't enough reliable news outlets on the Internet, feel free to start your own.
At the end of the day, there must not be legislation that attempts to control the free press. Libel laws already exist. I don't want to make this into a topical political debate, but the example is already too relevant. We are already seeing a government is this attacking and controlling the press. This can only be bad in the end.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @11:31PM
You know, constitutions are like penises. Everyone's got one, except the Brits, and they are more than welcome to like their own penis and have pride in their own penis, but it's awfully impolite to bring up your penis in every conversation.
(Score: 1) by bro1 on Friday February 24 2017, @05:28PM
Most courts and government agencies apply a reasonable person standard to determine all sorts of things when dealing with interpretation of impact of speech and claims.
Unfortunately this type of absolutist free speech is directly hurting too many people. So I totally support the prosecution of any threats online. And I totally support the tooling that would allow web sites to implement filtering of trolling and psychologically hurtful speech (preferably allowing users to filter it out, rather than deleting it)
Personal experience: I have been threatened a few times throughout my online presence - sometimes threatening to sue me, sometimes with physical violence, sometimes with promises to spread misinformation about me in order to ruin/affect my career. The effect of these types of threats has definitely affected me for a few days each time.
I would consider myself to be a thick skinned person and I can understand how these types of "free speech expressions" would seriously affect almost anyone, especially if it's consistent non-stop attacks. See this clip for an example: https://www.ted.com/talks/ashley_judd_how_online_abuse_of_women_has_spiraled_out_of_control [ted.com]
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday February 24 2017, @06:54PM
I still don't get why people can't figure out how to use the "block" feature.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by bro1 on Friday February 24 2017, @07:10PM
Blocking a user after the threat doesn't unsee the threat.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @10:07PM
Well, too bad. Sometimes you see things you don't like. Toughen up.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday February 24 2017, @08:46PM
Blocking a user does not prevent defamation or slander or libel.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday February 24 2017, @08:59PM
"...absolutist free speech is directly hurting too many people..."
who ?
where ?
and, most interestingly to me, HOW ? ? ?
no, *some* people are TAKING OFFENSE to words, whether 'hateful' or not...
that is NOT 'directly hurting'...
PLEASE STOP MAKING ASSAULTS UP when there are far too many all too real assaults...
oh, you've been subject to online threats, etc...
*yawn*
out of curiosity, just how were you 'directly hurt' ? ? ?
do you have emergency room records ? ? ?
was there blood ? ? ?
was there vomiting, constipation, OR diarrhea, hot flashes, OR cold sweats, hair loss, a blister, or perhaps a hangnail ? ? ?
please, i don't want to hear some psychobabble; imagine this, i, too, have been subject to 'hate speech', threats, etc, i have indeed had a couple moments of discomfort, anger, and not a little bit of *gasp* hatred...
that is NOT being 'directly hurt', that is taking offense (rightfully or wrongfully is another matter) at a hurtful comment or bombastic threat of nearly no existential consequence...
here, i will prove it, i am about to broadcast hate rays from my brain at precisely 4:00 PM EST directed at bro1... *obviously*, kidz, this is a VERY dangerous practice, and should NEVER be tried at home... even though i hate doing this and reducing bro1 to a small pile of waxy blobs and smelly wet ashes, that is what happens when you mess around with unregulated hate-rays emanating from just anybody about anything...
okay, only two minutes until 4:00, you might want to sit down, bro1, sorry, but this is an important lesson for everyone...
*UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday February 24 2017, @06:13PM
You may need a reminder that the constitution was written in a time when only a tiny fraction of speech was not face to face. What was not face-to-face was time consuming or expensive.
So trolling was quite an endeavor, which either required a genuine investment in time and money, or carried a significant risk of being punched in the face. Both options kept things to reasonable levels which would only interfere with quality of life in extreme cases.
Mean systematic permanent harassment was clearly not in the mind of people who said speech is absolute, any more than nuclear weapons for the right to bear arms.
Context is everything...
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday February 24 2017, @09:09PM
nopey dopey, pseudonymous writing was VERY commonplace then, as well as in europe, as far as that goes..
not too smart to mock the king as yourself, but under a pen name with reasonable anonymity and plausible deniability, you could do so...
a HUGE proportion of our revolutionary phampleteering was done under no names or pseudonyms...
no, a society/gummint/civilization which will not allow free speech is a social structure which has turned on the people, and made them beholden to gummint, instead of gummint beholden to the people...
based on a true story...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 24 2017, @09:55PM
Apples, meet rear-axle grease...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @09:59PM
Nope, that is quite the apt comparison. To continue it, Googles AI is like paying some local toughs to go tear down / destroy any pamphlets that have undesirable content in them. I can see the usefulness of this tool, but I can also see its application becoming overly broad. The DMCA takedowns should be a huge warning to all, if your content gets flagged by the AI then you'll have to fight to get it back at the very least. Guilt by accusation, people tend to ignore cries for help when a big organization labels the person "bad" somehow.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday February 24 2017, @10:12PM
So trolling was quite an endeavor, which either required a genuine investment in time and money, or carried a significant risk of being punched in the face. Both options kept things to reasonable levels which would only interfere with quality of life in extreme cases.
Punching people in the face just because they said something you don't like is unjustifiable.
Mean systematic permanent harassment was clearly not in the mind of people who said speech is absolute, any more than nuclear weapons for the right to bear arms.
Even if that is true, that doesn't change the text of the first amendment. You can't speculate about what the founders would think about a 21st century 'problem' when the text itself is unambiguous.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 24 2017, @10:55PM
> Punching people in the face just because they said something you don't like is unjustifiable.
You haven't paid much attention to internet trolls, have you?
"something you don't like" includes not silly unpleasant banter, but personal insults, private information with an invite to harm you or your family, up to clear death threats.
The kind of discourse that people would not have if they didn't feel empowered by anonymity, as for centuries it would have resulted in a proper and well-deserved beating.
> Even if that is true, that doesn't change the text of the first amendment. You can't speculate about what the founders
> would think about a 21st century 'problem' when the text itself is unambiguous.
It turns out that SCOTUS has consistently agreed to some restrictions to speech (or WMDs), arguing that a strict unlimited reading of the concise wording could be counter-productive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 24 2017, @07:14PM
1. sorry, i am an ABSOLUTIST on free speech; for one reason, because it is THE bedrock right upon which all other rights depend...
So you support Google's right to call something 68% toxic, then?
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday February 24 2017, @09:19PM
oh, i have NO PROBLEM with google doing some idiotic 'rating' of toxicity of words...
for one, it is so beautifully orwellian as to be breathtaking, i am truly agog with their brazen hubris...
(but then, that appears to be the googs real stock in trade...)
my problem is if they are going to deprecate rankings or listings or searches, etc BASED on their idiotic rankings...
if they want to put them up on the search results -green = some % 'toxic' range, blue = some %, etc- but still show them, then they can do whatever idiot shit they want... especially if i can turn their idiot shit off...
again, the main point is, IF it is totally 'advisory' and just simplistic propaganda, it is their sandbox, they can do wtf they want... BUT, IF THEY ACTUALLY jigger the search results based on it, then, not just no, but, fuck no; THAT is being unfair and rendering their results suspect to me...
THEY ARE FORCING THEIR/OTHERS MORALS AND PREJUDICES ON ME...
(as it is, don't use their search shit any more, because, fuck you, googs, is why...)