Ah, I don't think we should "censor" the internet. I liked the interned the way it used to be: Like a goddamn jungle.
With that being said, Internet has a huge influence over everything now. We need to make sure it's not fucking over societies.
Right today I was reading an article how people are drinking their own pee and applying it to their skin as a health measure to heal and have better skin.
And they find an audience (who craves for that stuff).
I don't think the internet needs to be censored but I think we need to fix the problem of credibility on the internet: I would love to be able to call BS I read but it's becoming incredibly hard. There's just too much out there.
Credibility has always been an issue...
People need to learn to filter out nonsense themselves, or else they become dependent on outside sources to do their own thinking, thereby lowering their IQ over time.
EXACTLY. Censorship is censorship, even if it's for the so called "Greater Good", as they state in this article.
They state: "we believe that it is necessary to ensure that AI serves the public good."
Let people determine fake news for themselves. We don't want a bunch of automoton people that trust everything they read on the internet. We should instead make them aware that news could be fake and they should further research before making conclusions. Making algorithms detect what's fake and telling people, "Don't worry, we found all the fake news, you can believe what we show you" will farm mediocre people.
For some reason, AI folks in Silicon Valley believe they are superior to middle America and they feel it's their duty to protect them from 'fake news'.
People can think for themselves.
"To deny free speech in order to engineer social change in the name of accomplishing a greater good for one sector of our society erodes the freedoms of all," Judge Barker says that it "threatens tyranny and injustices for those subjected to the rule of such laws."
Source: "Censorship in the name of civil rights is censorship all the same" OCTOBER 10, 1985
https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/1010/dcurt10.html
> increasingly necessary to try and censor the internet?
Most BBSs were moderated.
Most IRC channels were moderated.
Most PHPBB forums were moderated.
This very comments section (and news article listing it's attached to) is moderated.
Anyone who has been around the internet for a while knows that moderation and curating is basically ubiquitous and necessary because of both intentionally bad actors and also because of low-quality contributors.
I would laugh at you if you told me in 1990s or even 2000s that congresspeople would be concerned about internet trolls. But I also would have laughed at you if you told me most people would carry palm pilot-like devices everywhere.
What changed in eternal September was not the instinct or moderate or the necessity of moderation. If anything, the amount of moderation per user post probably substantially decreased. But the stakes did change. The stakes changed because the userbase got massive enough to matter in the national and international balance of power.
That scale is also the reason this is now an AI challenge instead of a "call/DM/PM Johnny the admin and ask him to deal with the asshat derailing every conversation about Blah De Bloop with stupid conspiracy theory shit" challenge.
> From Sept. 12 to Oct. 14, 2018, we’re inviting you to submit your idea to win a share of $750,000, which we’ll award in February 2019 to the most compelling teams and projects.
I personally submitted one of my past projects, https://www.quod.us - I stopped working on it, but with a grant I would put some more time in.
It's already built and live (although it didn't take very long to make). It's just a simple platform for people to report misinformation encountered online, and the idea is to make the database open to developers who want to make tools to address the problem of misinformation.
I requested 85k from them. I'm not getting my hopes up, however it seems like a good fit for my project.
First impression: your site claims that $15/hr is a living wage in a major city, when in Seattle you'll be spending at least half that on an apartment anywhere in the metro area.
Users submit the reports, you should vote that one down or reply in the comments with some evidence if you disagree.
I actually don't like the fact that it's a controversial site by nature because I generally try to avoid controversial stuff. If the site ever took off I'd have to figure out how to do moderation/employ fact checkers, etc.
I stopped working on it for many reasons including that one, but I think there's some potential for the idea. It's pretty similar to what Elon Musk was suggesting (pravduh or whatever). I think he stopped working on his too actually, but I haven't been following it.
21 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 47.8 ms ] threadthe government is for "stopping bad actors"
just run for elected office on a public safety platform
countries outside the USA might find a corporate security project interesting but the government handles that in the USA THANK YOU VERY MUCH
(Submitted title was "$750k Open AI Challenge".)
Can anybody explain to me why exactly we find it increasingly necessary to try and censor the internet?
With that being said, Internet has a huge influence over everything now. We need to make sure it's not fucking over societies.
Right today I was reading an article how people are drinking their own pee and applying it to their skin as a health measure to heal and have better skin. And they find an audience (who craves for that stuff).
I don't think the internet needs to be censored but I think we need to fix the problem of credibility on the internet: I would love to be able to call BS I read but it's becoming incredibly hard. There's just too much out there.
They state: "we believe that it is necessary to ensure that AI serves the public good."
Let people determine fake news for themselves. We don't want a bunch of automoton people that trust everything they read on the internet. We should instead make them aware that news could be fake and they should further research before making conclusions. Making algorithms detect what's fake and telling people, "Don't worry, we found all the fake news, you can believe what we show you" will farm mediocre people. For some reason, AI folks in Silicon Valley believe they are superior to middle America and they feel it's their duty to protect them from 'fake news'. People can think for themselves.
"To deny free speech in order to engineer social change in the name of accomplishing a greater good for one sector of our society erodes the freedoms of all," Judge Barker says that it "threatens tyranny and injustices for those subjected to the rule of such laws." Source: "Censorship in the name of civil rights is censorship all the same" OCTOBER 10, 1985 https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/1010/dcurt10.html
Most BBSs were moderated.
Most IRC channels were moderated.
Most PHPBB forums were moderated.
This very comments section (and news article listing it's attached to) is moderated.
Anyone who has been around the internet for a while knows that moderation and curating is basically ubiquitous and necessary because of both intentionally bad actors and also because of low-quality contributors.
I would laugh at you if you told me in 1990s or even 2000s that congresspeople would be concerned about internet trolls. But I also would have laughed at you if you told me most people would carry palm pilot-like devices everywhere.
What changed in eternal September was not the instinct or moderate or the necessity of moderation. If anything, the amount of moderation per user post probably substantially decreased. But the stakes did change. The stakes changed because the userbase got massive enough to matter in the national and international balance of power.
That scale is also the reason this is now an AI challenge instead of a "call/DM/PM Johnny the admin and ask him to deal with the asshat derailing every conversation about Blah De Bloop with stupid conspiracy theory shit" challenge.
It’s a bit late.
What kind of year-long project can say a journalist, designer, or lawyer run for $75k - $200k to address those problems?
It's too much time and money to simply write an article about it, but not enough money to build say a software solution.
It's already built and live (although it didn't take very long to make). It's just a simple platform for people to report misinformation encountered online, and the idea is to make the database open to developers who want to make tools to address the problem of misinformation.
I requested 85k from them. I'm not getting my hopes up, however it seems like a good fit for my project.
I actually don't like the fact that it's a controversial site by nature because I generally try to avoid controversial stuff. If the site ever took off I'd have to figure out how to do moderation/employ fact checkers, etc.
I stopped working on it for many reasons including that one, but I think there's some potential for the idea. It's pretty similar to what Elon Musk was suggesting (pravduh or whatever). I think he stopped working on his too actually, but I haven't been following it.
BTW I just looked - here's some data http://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/42660 and you're right, the housing cost is roughly half
I'm not saying I endorse that data though.