Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Sci-fi writer offers future op-ed about the end of user-generated content, and more

Science Fiction writer Cory Doctorow (who also writes for Electronic Frontier Foundation) has an op-ed from the future, which he says he should not have to publish in the New York Times. 

The op-ed suggests that soon social media sites and even webhosts will prohibit “amateurs” from talking about politics on their own.  Section 230 protections will be removed (and maybe DMCA Safe Harbor too – look at what happened in the EU with Article 17) and all platforms will be treated as publishers.  Self-publishing will be prohibited unless it can pay for itself with legitimate commerce (not patronage).
If you want to have a voice, you will have to join a “registered” non-profit and be willing so support things you don’t personally believe for other “oppressed” intersectional groups to be protected yourself.
Some businesses want this, too:  they want door-to-door and telemarketing work and high pressure salesmanship to be socially legitimate again.  I found that out in various unsolicited job interviews in the 2000s.  The Internet MGTOW’s were destroying solidarity.  Even Economic Invincibility (Martin Goldberg) admits it.

Facebook’s prodding of people to run non-profit fundraisers under their own name publicly is symptomatic of this problem.

This is what the radical, authoritarian, “Stalinist” Left wants now – it wants to force people to join them.

I’ll turn 76 soon, maybe I will be gone by then, but my “soul” will still know from whatever Universe my afterlife takes place in.

Quilette has a similar piece online “How free speech dies online”, by Daniel Friedman.    The article recognizes the stochastic problem with speech:  it isn’t just an individual piece of content, but the intentions of the speaker. That’s why YouTube has started banning ideologies, and Facebook “dangerous individuals and organizations”.

The small social network Ravelry, that appeals to knitting and people who make quilts and run bees (like for the AIDS quilts of the past), ban accounts for people who express support for Trump. Here is a slippery slope:  a social network practically demanding political loyalty to its candidates (NPR Vanessa Romo).  My own cousin, who passed away in Ohio from ALS in early 2018, was very big on quilting. (The site does say "don't talk about it here", but it also says it can't be inclusive if it allows talk supporting Trump. It says "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support of White supremacy." That just isn't true.  Eduardo Sanchez-Ubanell made a comedy video about dating a Trump supporter.  Is such satire a way of saying this statement by Ravelry is untrue? 

Another group "rpg.net" had banned talk of Trump, considering his administration "an elected hate group" (Timcast, 2019/6/24, also vice.). 
There is also a report from Project Veritas about an attempt within a major tech company to prevent a “Trump situation” with the 2020 election.  This video (“Machine Learning Fairness”) is on Bitchute and it can’t be embedded. 
 The video from Ben Shapiro on June 6 talks about YouTube’s “fuzzy line” and goalpost-moving and vulnerability to a “heckler’s veto”.
The Verge, in an article by Julia Alexander, explains why "demonetization" of big (possibly extremist or stochastic) YouTube channels "doesn't work". Carlos Maza already tweeted it. But so did I. 

No comments: