These kinds of cases are good, as they help set precedent on how to better manage the relationship between users, businesses, and technology.
Some semblance of moderation is needed in every platform, and it's good to litigate in order to define red lines.
Edit: Turns out it's written by the CEO of TechDirt Mike Masnick, and he has previously been found to write articles after being paid by Google and Oracle (tbf, all the old school "tech" blogs do that, and it's gunna get real bad now that it's conference season)
"I disagree, therefore the author is a paid shill with ulterior motives" is not a good approach to discourse.
Just engage with the argument on its own merits -- valid arguments don't become invalid just because someone had an ulterior motive in making them, and conversely, invalid arguments don't become valid ones just because their proponents have honest motivations.
Treating everyone as if they were engaging in good faith is equally not a good approach to discourse. I get where you're coming from but the system you're proposing creates a situation where it's cheaper to pollute the discourse than the consequences you face for polluting the discourse.
> Treating everyone as if they were engaging in good faith is equally not a good approach to discourse.
In fact, it is the best approach to discourse, and the only one that does not impugn one's own credibility. It is correct to presume that everyone is arguing in good faith unless and until they make it explicit that they are arguing in bad faith.
> I get where you're coming from but the system you're proposing creates a situation where it's cheaper to pollute the discourse than the consequences you face for polluting the discourse.
You're misunderstanding. You're not 'polluting the discourse' by having bad motivations for making your arguments, because your motivations per se are not part of the discourse. Someone who has a bad motive for making a correct argument is still making a correct argument.
One only 'pollutes the discourse' by making bad arguments, but those arguments can be challenged for being bad arguments in themselves, which must be done prior to questioning motives.
Only when someone has (a) made a provably bad argument, and then (b) revealed that their bad argument was deliberately made in pursuit of an ulterior purpose, is it proper to criticize their intentions.
Until that point has been reached, challenging people's motives instead of refuting the substance of their arguments is itself an instance of arguing in bad faith.
This article misses the point. People don't want the tech companies to provide the consequences for breaking the law, they want tech companies to do a better job preventing the law from being broken in the first place. And if society deems these tech companies are intentionally allowing people to break the law as a means to spur growth overall, many people feel there should be consequences for the tech companies.
We have been having the same argument about this for basically the entire history of the internet. It is really no different whether the specific case is about someone using AI to get their boss fired or uploading a copyrighted movie to YouTube. The tech companies should have at least a little responsibility in preventing the abuse of their system. The question is just where to draw that line.
> I understand that there’s anger from some corners that this happened in the first place, but this is the nature of society. Somethings break the law, and we treat them accordingly.
> Wishing to live in a world in which no one could ever break the law, or in which companies were somehow magically responsible for guaranteeing no one would ever misuse their products is not a good outcome. It would lead to a horrific mess of mostly useless tools, ruined by the small group of people who might misuse them.
Seems that the article isn't the one missing the point.
>Wishing to live in a world in which no one could ever break the law, or in which companies were somehow magically responsible for guaranteeing no one would ever misuse their products is not a good outcome.
This is classic straw man stuff. No one is pretending we live in a perfect world in which these companies can hit a button and prevent all crime. The question is just what is the bare minimum of work they should do to prevent abuse. Everyone agrees with this at some level. We don't want Youtube to be filled with CSAM and we all agree that Google has some responsibility in preventing that. Once again, the question is just where the line exists.
> People don't want the tech companies to provide the consequences for breaking the law, they want tech companies to do a better job preventing the law from being broken in the first place.
And yet no one seems to hold anyone other then "tech companies" to the same standard. No one expects the phone company to preemptively identify and block stalkers, or monitor the content of people's phone calls to filter out threatening or offensive language. No one expects the postal service to do the same for written correspondence. No one expects the people managing parking lots to prevent people from driving without insurance or licenses, or newspapers to vet the intentions of whomever is still posting classified ads in print media.
The internet is just a digital version of the same sorts of communication tools and public gathering spaces we've always had. Why would we expect people who are providing tools to communicate with each other to preemptively police conduct of their users, when we don't expect the same (and would likely find it intrusive) from the offline venues that they're analogous to?
It is easy to cherry-pick examples that go in either direction. For example, try to photocopy a dollar bill and see what happens. As a society we have drawn some lines regarding the minimum expectations for preventing abuse. There are obviously going to be things that exist on both sides of that line.
One problem is that consequences are difficult to ensure in the anonymous crypto-anarchist utopia some users wish internet to be. This friction has been around since the very early days of the net, some thinking that internet should exist outside the traditional governance and loudly rejecting any government involvement in the internet. In practice that has proven to be untenable but that legacy still lives on.
I feel like I could soon be able to make some kind of free standing communistic enforcement bot that stockpiles and develops cyber weapons, then uses them to unilaterally fingerprint and police bad actors in an anonymous community. If they cause too much trouble, then the community bands together to nuke the bot. If it provides useful service, it is allowed to feed off the digital detritus of bad actors.
> to ensure in the anonymous crypto-anarchist utopia some users wish internet to be.
To be fair, there's a lot of those ideas I like. There's I think some naivety too, which I think you point out, but I'm glad these people exist. I think you need _some_ radicals (size is arguable) to push things in certain directions and challenge the status quo to ensure that we don't get stuck in our ways. Definitely seems like an optimal thing to have most people in a median and constant challengers, even if at times they are silly, it doesn't mean all their points are.
I think a good example of this might even be crypto currencies. There is definitely something to be said about the privacy of transactions and the power of government or any body has when they can see all your financial data. But this doesn't mean that MMT is complete bullshit and that there is something wrong with currencies not being on the gold standard.
Similarly, while I strongly support Section 230, I'm glad people push back against it. We need to be aware of its limitations and failures. Perhaps we can improve upon it (most certainly we can). But at the end of the day I'm on the side of Blackstone: It's better that $N guilty men go free than $M ($N > $M) innocent men be stricken of their freedom.
No system is perfect. It's unfortunate that we can't write laws to accurately codify the precise nature of our intentions (even if we removed much of the aggregation and wrote incredibly complicated laws) without erring in one direction or another (innocent being condemned, or guilty slipping free). It just means we need to approach things in a nuanced way and be aware that we need to tread carefully. So I'm happy radicals exist, but I also fear them gaining too much power.
Any software or hardware that I pay for and own should not only avoid providing consequences for me breaking the law, but actively protect me against law enforcement
I would pay more for an iPhone if Apple tried to legally obstruct every single law enforcement request in court
22 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 42.8 ms ] threadThese kinds of cases are good, as they help set precedent on how to better manage the relationship between users, businesses, and technology.
Some semblance of moderation is needed in every platform, and it's good to litigate in order to define red lines.
Edit: Turns out it's written by the CEO of TechDirt Mike Masnick, and he has previously been found to write articles after being paid by Google and Oracle (tbf, all the old school "tech" blogs do that, and it's gunna get real bad now that it's conference season)
Just engage with the argument on its own merits -- valid arguments don't become invalid just because someone had an ulterior motive in making them, and conversely, invalid arguments don't become valid ones just because their proponents have honest motivations.
In fact, it is the best approach to discourse, and the only one that does not impugn one's own credibility. It is correct to presume that everyone is arguing in good faith unless and until they make it explicit that they are arguing in bad faith.
> I get where you're coming from but the system you're proposing creates a situation where it's cheaper to pollute the discourse than the consequences you face for polluting the discourse.
You're misunderstanding. You're not 'polluting the discourse' by having bad motivations for making your arguments, because your motivations per se are not part of the discourse. Someone who has a bad motive for making a correct argument is still making a correct argument.
One only 'pollutes the discourse' by making bad arguments, but those arguments can be challenged for being bad arguments in themselves, which must be done prior to questioning motives.
Only when someone has (a) made a provably bad argument, and then (b) revealed that their bad argument was deliberately made in pursuit of an ulterior purpose, is it proper to criticize their intentions.
Until that point has been reached, challenging people's motives instead of refuting the substance of their arguments is itself an instance of arguing in bad faith.
We have been having the same argument about this for basically the entire history of the internet. It is really no different whether the specific case is about someone using AI to get their boss fired or uploading a copyrighted movie to YouTube. The tech companies should have at least a little responsibility in preventing the abuse of their system. The question is just where to draw that line.
> Wishing to live in a world in which no one could ever break the law, or in which companies were somehow magically responsible for guaranteeing no one would ever misuse their products is not a good outcome. It would lead to a horrific mess of mostly useless tools, ruined by the small group of people who might misuse them.
Seems that the article isn't the one missing the point.
This is classic straw man stuff. No one is pretending we live in a perfect world in which these companies can hit a button and prevent all crime. The question is just what is the bare minimum of work they should do to prevent abuse. Everyone agrees with this at some level. We don't want Youtube to be filled with CSAM and we all agree that Google has some responsibility in preventing that. Once again, the question is just where the line exists.
And yet no one seems to hold anyone other then "tech companies" to the same standard. No one expects the phone company to preemptively identify and block stalkers, or monitor the content of people's phone calls to filter out threatening or offensive language. No one expects the postal service to do the same for written correspondence. No one expects the people managing parking lots to prevent people from driving without insurance or licenses, or newspapers to vet the intentions of whomever is still posting classified ads in print media.
The internet is just a digital version of the same sorts of communication tools and public gathering spaces we've always had. Why would we expect people who are providing tools to communicate with each other to preemptively police conduct of their users, when we don't expect the same (and would likely find it intrusive) from the offline venues that they're analogous to?
People do really expect that one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
And who watches the watchmen? Who's watchmen should be the watchmen?
To be fair, there's a lot of those ideas I like. There's I think some naivety too, which I think you point out, but I'm glad these people exist. I think you need _some_ radicals (size is arguable) to push things in certain directions and challenge the status quo to ensure that we don't get stuck in our ways. Definitely seems like an optimal thing to have most people in a median and constant challengers, even if at times they are silly, it doesn't mean all their points are.
I think a good example of this might even be crypto currencies. There is definitely something to be said about the privacy of transactions and the power of government or any body has when they can see all your financial data. But this doesn't mean that MMT is complete bullshit and that there is something wrong with currencies not being on the gold standard.
Similarly, while I strongly support Section 230, I'm glad people push back against it. We need to be aware of its limitations and failures. Perhaps we can improve upon it (most certainly we can). But at the end of the day I'm on the side of Blackstone: It's better that $N guilty men go free than $M ($N > $M) innocent men be stricken of their freedom.
No system is perfect. It's unfortunate that we can't write laws to accurately codify the precise nature of our intentions (even if we removed much of the aggregation and wrote incredibly complicated laws) without erring in one direction or another (innocent being condemned, or guilty slipping free). It just means we need to approach things in a nuanced way and be aware that we need to tread carefully. So I'm happy radicals exist, but I also fear them gaining too much power.
Lots of discussion on the Baltimore case
Ex-athletic director arrested for framing principal with AI-generated voice
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40158183
I would pay more for an iPhone if Apple tried to legally obstruct every single law enforcement request in court