unityByFreedom

> I understand that YouTube doesn't adjudicate claims themselves, but I think this may explain why they don't. Their adjudicators are heavily incentivized to take everything down. As a result, YouTube is hands off.

Damn, I found this hard to believe so I looked it up [1], and you're right.

It's like when Lois says "9/11" and everyone goes wild [2].

> Mr. Trump, you have said you want to appeal Obamacare. You have also said, quote, "Everybody's got to be covered," adding, quote, "The government's going to pay for it." Are you closer to Bernie Sanders' vision for health care than Hillary Clinton's?

> TRUMP: I don't think I am. I think I'm closer to common sense. We are going to repeal Obamacare.

> (APPLAUSE)

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/06/tr....

[2] https://youtu.be/Rm3d43HLyTI?t=37

So, root cause is media conglomerates again. That just underscores my belief we should be tackling broadband ISP monopolies, and that midterms are important to secure the final FCC seat. Then we can reclassify broadband to 100 Mbps instead of the miniscule 25 Mbps that we have now. The types of service customers are actually getting will become more clear, and that should foster competition.

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, the argument has been that broadband is expensive to roll out to non-urban areas. So they'll make exclusive agreements with municipalities, and/or take government money to complete the work.

From a customer's perspective, it seems they take the money and run to the bank. Where competition is low, and that's a lot of places, so is the quality of customer service and the provided speeds. Fees can be high, and for the last 20 years they've been trying to figure out how to get even more money by gutting net neutrality. They can be very aggressive on this [1], and there aren't really any significant repercussions. You probably don't want to fine a company out of existence, and any fine you do apply doesn't mean much if they get to keep their customers.

These ISP and content conglomerates have just gotten too big, and I think it's biting us in the form of tech monopolies that sit atop them.

The FCC is trying to redefine broadband to be 100 Mbps [2]. Almost certainly, the 2 republican commissioners will vote against that, and the democratic commissioners will vote for it. So it won't pass until the final FCC chair is filled, which Manchin is stalling in the senate [3].

Chances are it comes down to midterms. It's an important issue, the challenge is making it relatable to the public amidst other issues.

[1] https://youtu.be/BEXuK073bkE?t=749

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/19/fcc-bro...

[3] https://www.axios.com/2022/06/03/biden-fcc-nominee-gigi-sohn...

I agree that the FTC should be looking at tech.

Personally I'd like to see them aimed at regional broadband ISP monopolies first, since that is an underlying infrastructure for the services we use.

I'm not sure where the FTC is on this, but I know the focus in media has shifted in recent years from Comcast etc. to FAANG. Perhaps that's because the problems from the platform-based monopolies enabled by ISPs are closer and thus more apparent to us. Or, maybe it's a campaign propped up by ISPs to take the focus off of them.

> The workflow Youtube has is pretty bizarre.

Is it? If it's more expensive for them to get it right, then maybe not getting involved in the adjudication makes sense.

It does seem like a great reason for creators to not publish on YouTube, however.

Once there is sufficient competition I would expect them to start adjudicating.

And before someone jumps in and blames the money train, capitalism, etc. Please let me know how you would run a business that is not profitable. The money to pay salaries has to come from somewhere.

Imagine you're the copyright adjudicator for this claim at YouTube. You don't know if the claim is accurate. If it is and you leave the content up, your employer might be fined, and you get a write-up from your boss. If you take the content down, no fine, no write-up.

What would you do? Even if you try to side with creators, you might eventually be let go for making too many mistakes.

I understand that YouTube doesn't adjudicate claims themselves, but I think this may explain why they don't. Their adjudicators are heavily incentivized to take everything down. As a result, YouTube is hands off.

If this is an accurate framing of the situation, then incentives may not be properly aligned. Alternatively, YouTube (and others) simply have a monopoly position that needs to be out-competed.

> it doesn't seem like they are doing anything uniquely untoward.

I think it's best to assume if it can be used against you, it will.

That's why we pushed back on Apple's CSAM plans to scan images on the device.

Does anyone remember how we even know TikTok is tracking keystrokes? It's because Apple updated their security to notify users when the clipboard was activated by the app, and TikTok was doing it for every keystroke.

Please elaborate on what other "version of capitalism" is necessary.

Hope we are not advocating that everything be owned by the state, as if that would allow more competition.

Your typing cadence may be another bit of identifying personal info. Not to mention they could be lying or "not know" what their tech is really doing. Wouldn't be the first time.

Huge difference, I agree. Also, old news.

Not the FCC, this is one FCC commissioner's statement. He's not the chair, nor is he part of the majority party, so you can probably read this as a political statement.

Republicans had a chance to ban TikTok during the last administration. They did not do it.

I'm surprised there's no mention of Ab Initio, which looks like [1], in these threads. AFAIK they were the pioneer in BI ETL while everyone else was copying.

Then again, they are pretty secretive, and that may be why I can't find any videos of the tool itself in use (edit here's one [3]), maybe due to copyright takedown requests.

That software was the successor of Thinking Machines [2], which was the hot AI company of the 80s AI boom. The software itself is quite good at parallelizing logic. And, the graphical front-end makes it easy for non-programmers to pick up the tool.

[1] https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FwFkbVFfnGQ/S1qa8lgcw4I/AAAAAAAAA...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_Machines_Corporation

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlZlpsa0jyA

It could if your $200 billion valuation is based on the stock of over-valued companies which you used to over-leverage-borrow, and you need every free penny to continue paying back debt and keep that stock price high.

> I expect that a significant number of these companies will eventually be sued and will be forced to repay their customers.

The money was already moved. They will declare bankruptcy.

It's a scam, not the government's fault. There would be no way to enforce such a law. It's on you to understand that get-rich-quick schemes are too good to be true.

> Also, what on earth is traditional western society? Like, Greek?

There is some question as to what constitutes "Chinese society" too.

Do you use simplified or traditional characters? Must you simply respect your elders, or do you also need to be subservient to them? Can you trade with the west? Become successful without prior approval? Protest peacefully? Own property?

Chips and shipping lanes.

That's funny. I remember when nobody knew what TikTok was, and TikTok-watermarked videos were all over Reddit's front page. It was a great marketing spot for them.

Neutral would be doing nothing and letting people work out their frustrations without an intermediary deciding for them. But that's not Facebook's culture, internal or external.

In a different world, managers could still have discussions with employees about hitting their work targets without needing to tell them what to talk about with other employees.

You don't need to participate in these discussions or read them. I'd say it's fine to relegate such discussion to certain channels within the company. But banning it altogether is taking a position.

Not to mention the fact that Facebook influences politics every day. Blocking employees from having a discussion about that, which is very work-related, is authoritarian.

Zuck is still running the Thiel playbook here.

Thing is, by banning a certain viewpoint on an open platform, you are promoting another viewpoint.

Those who want to be vocal about this right now are largely opposed to the court's decision. So this does not appear to be a neutral decision.

Policing speech isn't going to end well for an organization of any size, from countries to companies to families.

If someone is not meeting their work targets due to distractions, deal with that as it's always been handled. You can trust people to manage their own distractions with slight adjustments from authority. Facebook's policy here is micro management to the extreme.

Devil's advocate, you could get taken over or end up with a different board. I wouldn't like to see it but someone's got to compete with you or we'll have to send in the FTC! :)

> secession

Succession?

Good communicators generally foster that environment. And their customers appreciate it, so there is an external expectation now too. Everything ends some day, but I think this will be regarded as a valuable attribute for awhile.

> there is nothing inherently centralized about spam prevention.

I'd say there is. You could crowd source moderation, but that's susceptible to the same manipulation seen with bitcoin miners.

Culturally speaking, we seek out trustable sources. I'm not sure technology can surmount that.

I read it the same way and completely agree with you. Grammar and the context in which statements are presented can be biased too.

I don't know whether they teach that in journalism school. My guess is that they do, and that this type of bias only leaks out now due to the overwhelming amount of citizen journalism that social media allows.

I think the other replies to you who won't consider this possibility are influenced by trying to take down Amazon, which in my opinion they will do to themselves if it is warranted. No media push is necessary.

We still haven't found our way back to trusted sources. Some day, we will.

> there doesn't seem to be the slightest hint in the writing that credit card fraud is wrong, or that it's even something you shouldn't do. I looked for it.

It's there,

> I also don’t want her calling up an ISP and convincing them to make an account for her - I’m not quite ready to reap what I sow.

That point did make it come across as "youthful indescretion" to me.

> what he did wasn't 'a hack', it wasn't particularly clever. It was just theft of services and a lot of lying because he didn't have something he wanted.

Who says a hack needs to be clever? And what is clever? Bug fixes are often something very simple that can take a long time to discover. I'd put hacks into the same category.

Again, I think demonizing confessions like this can cause more trouble. Just because we don't talk about mischievousness doesn't mean it isn't out there.

Maybe they're trying to establish themselves as a place to leak military secrets.

> That's a really awesome story with a great opening, middle, and especially the end, if one ignores the adolescent fraud.

That admission was the best part! Everyone here was not goody two shoes in their teens. Accepting this reality can release people from expectations of perfection. Perhaps ironically, kids' behavior can improve when they feel their imperfections are airable.