Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...come man, answer my question...you just repeat the same old stuff...
...i believe it's very difficult to distinguish a hateful post, what's hateful? who's gonna decide?
...WHO..i repeat, WHO will decide what 'hate' is...you?..me?..the guy over there?
...oh, and to rely on CEO's who's only legal responsibility is to the stock holders and a fiduciary charge to increase the value of said stock....yeah, they're real purveyors of righteousness....
When it comes to FB and similar companies? The folks they hire to make the decision will make it. I'd think that would be obvious. Any company that has a TOS agreement with its users makes these decisions all the time. If you don't know how TOS agreements work, you could pay attention to how City-Data does it, and maybe learn something. Seems to me that C-D is doing quite well at attracting users AND enforcing its TOS.
In fact, I wouldn't be hanging out here if C-D didn't enforce its TOS.
I would have no problem if ALL hate-filled videos were deleted, but the problem, I think, would become one of definitions and boundaries. Some people seem to have absolutely NO tolerance for even mild disagreements to the point they think anyone who disagrees with their point of view should be silenced, while others seem to think that anything is okay as long as videos don't show people actually being tortured to death.
And what about comments? Sometimes the videos are okay, but the comments about them are absolutely vile.
Exactly. How to determine what is a "hate video?" It's a slippery slope.
I would have no problem if ALL hate-filled videos were deleted, but the problem, I think, would become one of definitions and boundaries. Some people seem to have absolutely NO tolerance for even mild disagreements to the point they think anyone who disagrees with their point of view should be silenced, while others seem to think that anything is okay as long as videos don't show people actually being tortured to death.
And what about comments? Sometimes the videos are okay, but the comments about them are absolutely vile.
It's hard to imagine for those who haven't been on the net from the beginning (I was since 1986), but these things were not even considered because no one had ANY desire to create lousy hateful or even disagreeable videos! I'm serious! And I was deep into the net when video and audio was first starting.
We desired to show a "how to". Or maybe a short sales video that we already had on VHS or DVD. Some instructional videos.....and the big studios wanted to post trailers (Youtube liked this also because it drew people to the platform).
It wasn't even imagined that it to would be drawn into the lowest common denominator that most online "conversations" attained by about 2007 or so.
But this is the way things are. Most people don't even realize that THEY have steered the ship, often through greed (views=money), but also by the usual methods of "if it bleeds it leads".
I could tell more stories about all that, but the long and short is that the internet was hoped....to be a place where we would share knowledge freely, not an ad-filled space with click bait, spam and hate that brought every Nazi out of their hole.
But that's what happened once it took no technical knowledge to get online and create web sites, etc.
Skill in itself was presenting a certain barrier to "anything goes" (The KKK didn't know how to make web pages). Also, there was less anoninity...and, as mentioned before, less reward for bad behavior.
The "heroes" of the internet were the people who used it for what it was developed for...to extend knowledge, science, medicine and all the rest.
There is no "plot" here. Rather there is unintended result where people were given "too much freedom that others paid for" and became countless mobs. People just cannot help themselves.
I find it hard to compare it to much, but it would be like providing free drugs of every sort, every type of food and booze and ever other pleasure possible to millions without any society, laws or limits or responsibilities. The result would be a disaster....as in the current internet.
A few bad apples really DO spoil the bunch.
The only solution is heavy moderation - I ran a very large forum for 18 years and I could count the big problems on one hand. I do have to admit that things changed in about 2013....members started to act like the folk we are talking about now (like they "owned" my property). They tried to completely own it and I had to step in with many nuclear options including the direct threat to individual #1 of legal action. He finally begged me to reconsider and he would go away. But he had already tainted 100 or more (out of tens of thousands) of members, so there was that problem to deal with. Still, that forum is up and running today with no problem...and whenever this stuff (sorry to say, but it IS 95% Right Wing Crap) shows up they shut it down instantly. It works.
Comments are often closed on YT and perhaps they will disallow them on many videos.
AI can do some moderation, but in the end those suckers are sneaky - and it will likely take humans. That's doable since many decent people are willing to do volunteer moderation.
If humans would only act decently (they won't), the problem would hardly exist. But there are too many rewards for attention...they cannot help themselves.
Exactly. How to determine what is a "hate video?" It's a slippery slope.
Showing a roofing repair or how to replace your A/C condensing fan motor...they are not hate videos.
Factory tours are not hate videos.
A review of the newest drone of smartphone? Not a hate video.
Sesame Street Episodes.....not hate videos.
Not really too hard. I believe in humans being able to tell the difference between those and others which tell me that Muslims are going to rape my kids.
Get your acts together, create a business plan, obtain venture capital and hire talent to compete.
I am sure sponsors will be delighted to pay you for ads and clicks.
Don't charge users a dime.
Since the government has been looking into Anti-trust violations by these social media companies (often due to censorship), it doesn't seem like they see it that way...
When it comes to FB and similar companies? The folks they hire to make the decision will make it. I'd think that would be obvious. Any company that has a TOS agreement with its users makes these decisions all the time. If you don't know how TOS agreements work, you could pay attention to how City-Data does it, and maybe learn something. Seems to me that C-D is doing quite well at attracting users AND enforcing its TOS.
In fact, I wouldn't be hanging out here if C-D didn't enforce its TOS.
So some companies can decide who to do business with, and others (bakers, pizza makers) can't.
Since the government has been looking into Anti-trust violations by these social media companies (often due to censorship), it doesn't seem like they see it that way...
I thought they were looking at whether these companies are so big that new platforms find it difficult to get into the market. Personally, I think they are. But I doubt the government will be looking at a company's right to require its users to agree to a TOS. Even InfoWars requires a new user to agree to a TOS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
