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: 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.