Comment

Comment on What if the panic over teens and tech is totally wrong?

This is a tough and complex issue, because tech companies using algorithmic curation and control mechanisms to influence kids and adults is a real, truly dangerous issue. But it’s getting torn at from all sides to force their own agendas.

Allowing large corporations to control and influence our social interactions is a hugely dangerous precedent. Apple and Google and huge telcos may be involved in delivering your text messages, but they don’t curate or moderate them, nor do they send you texts from other people based on how they want you to feel about an issue, or to sell you products. On social media, they do.

But you’ve got right-wingers clamoring to strip companies from liability protections from user-generated content, which does not address the issue, and is all about allowing the government to dictate what content is acceptable from a political standpoint (because LGBTQ+ content is harmful ^/s^ and they want companies to censor it).

And you’ve got neolibs and some extremely misguided progressives pushing for sites that allow UGC (which is by definition all social media) to have to check ages of their users by implementing ID checks (which also of course treats any adults without an accepted form of ID as children), which just massively benefits large companies who can afford the security infra to do those checks and store that data, and kills small and medium platforms, all while creating name-and-face tracking of peoples’ online activities, and legally mandating we turn over more personal data to corporations…

…and still doesn’t address the issue of corporations exerting influence algorithmically.

tl;dr the US is a corporatist hellscape where 90% of politicians serve corporations either willfully, or are trivially manipulated to.

source

Sort:hotnew top

abbadon420@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Yesterday I half read a Dutch (paywalled) article about the German tech enterpeneur Peter Thiel (paypal). Who was boasting about not caring about politics much, but that it was very convenient to have your own man at the top (jd vance). He claims to not believe in democracy or death (that’s the title)

I was thinking… dafuq are people like this even doing in politics and who let’s them have a say in politics? This is such a clear cut case of moneyoracy instead of democracy, it’s almost comedic.

The article, for those who care: fd.nl/…/techinvesteerder-achter-jd-vance-gelooft-…

source
Kissaki@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The tldr doesn’t match the text. Your elaboration is a lot better than your tldr.

source
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I mean I agree with that in principle, but: before the Internet, of course big corporations influenced kids and adults! Before the internet only big corporations had the resources and practical ability to distribute any information to a lot of people.

The promise of the internet was that we would have a society where we could all have a say and the flow of information would be democratized. You are right that, because of “algorithms”, that promise hasn’t really been fulfilled.

source
- t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I’m not anti-internet at all, I’m all for the internet; I just think it’s best when it’s by and for individuals.
  
  If I had my way, I’d ban corporations from operating anything online but digital storefronts. :P
  
  source
  - schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I certainly agree that the Internet should be by and for individuals; whether we can in the long term do completely without corporations, I am not sure, but the current “algorithmic curation” is definitely a problem.
    
    source
i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

large companies who can afford the security infra to do those checks and store that data

There is no such company. This is just another way to ban “harmful” content. Verifying your identity and age to access restricted content is practically guaranteed to result in your identity being compromised within your lifetime.

source
- t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I never said afford to protect it, just to comply with the requirements for doing the checks and storing it. Passing SOC2 or PCI-DSS (if you’re doing verification via payment card) doesn’t make you more secure in reality, but if you can’t afford to do those attestations in the first place, you’re out of the game.
  
  This is just another way to ban “harmful” content.
  
  That is true, but it’s not the whole picture. KOSA applies a Duty of Care requirement for all sites, whether they intend to have adult (or “harmful”) content or not.
  
  So your local daycare’s website that has a comment section could be (under the Senate version that has no business size limits) taken to court if someone posts something “inappropriate”. That’s not something they or other small sites can afford, so those sites will either remove all UGC or shutter, rather than face that legal liability.
  
  The real goal of KOSA (and the reason it’s being backed by Xitter, Snap, and Microsoft) is to kill off smaller platforms entirely, to force everyone into their ecosystems. And they’re willing to go along with the right-wing censorship nuts to do it. This is a move by big-tech in partnership with the Right, because totalitarianism is a political monopoly, and companies love monopolies.
  
  source