upvote

points

by dpoloncsak11 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby 0x5FC310 hours ago|
next
[-]
We can come up with a definition and refine it. Maybe something like: algorithmic content suggestions trying to maximize engagement and time on app (leave out chronological + explicit follow).

Banning is not the way to go about things. India is always ban happy -> a competitive exam in a state? Take down internet in the whole state to curb cheating. Outright banning hard to deal with stuff sets a bad precedent.

reply
upvoteby svachalek10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You don't ban the users or the internet, you make it illegal to do shitty psyops on the public. They were making plenty of money on chronological friend feeds.
reply
upvoteby repeekad10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
How do you ban psyops? Require every user register with a gov ID so there’s someone to go after? What’s a psyop vs a grassroots contrarian movement like LGBT used to be?

Anonymity online seems the ultimate double edge sword. I prefer privacy over government prescribed safety.

reply
upvoteby fnordlord8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I know I'm in the crazy minority but I'm over anonymity at this point. I want to know who's a real person and sincerely who they claim to be. The harms of trolling, scamming and societal mis/disinformation, for me, outweigh whatever benefit exists in anonymity. I've never assumed I was anonymous from the government anyway so really, we're just anonymous from one-another. Seems like a classic method of divide and conquer now that I think about it. All that said, I have no idea how to safely enforce ID'ing without some kind of authority (goverment or ideally something else).
reply
upvoteby JuniperMesos5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm willing to violate laws in order to facilitate people you claim are disinformation-spreading anonymous trolls being able to speak online anyway.
reply
upvoteby idle_zealot10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You investigate and punish groups found to be running psyops, simple as. No need to automate the whole process with ID checks, these organizations make and spend money so the tracks are there to find. If suspected drag them into discovery and gather evidence like you would for financial fraud or criminal conspiracy.
reply
upvoteby repeekad9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
They are often in other countries, and there are much worse crimes to focus attention on with a limited budget. This does happen and should more often, but it’s far from a full solution.
reply
upvoteby pibaker9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Sure, let's just give the state a pretext to jail anyone espousing opinions they don't like for running a psyop. Surely no government will abuse this power and brand anyone in their opposition as a psyop bot army that needs to be removed from the internet.
reply
upvoteby idle_zealot9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If they want to they'll do that under any pretense they can get away with. See the current administration declaring intent to treat pro-LGBT speech or anti-fascist speech as indicative of participation in terrorist groups.

You just can't let a government get this bad, and the set of rules and procedures you need to reign in a tyrant are pretty different from the ones you need to keep a system stable and functioning under normal operation.

reply
upvoteby pibaker9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Right now you can in fact express pro LGBT or anti fascist opinions despite the administration's efforts to stop you precisely because there are no such regulations.

Had a previous US administration thought that the US is a stable and functional democracy that can be entrusted with such a law, you will be in trouble.

reply
upvoteby idle_zealot7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not for a lack of laws granting the necessary powers; anti-terror laws passed in the wake of 9/11 allow for basically arbitrary use of warrantless surveillance and specifying any enemy as a terrorist. The reason this admin hasn't been successful in vindictively prosecuting its enemies is because they've only captured the Supreme Court, not the majority of the legislature. It's up to judges to interpret the law and decide if it's being applied appropriately. If you write an anti-psyop law it's far from impossible to make clear in the text what sort of organization it is meant to apply to. That's the case for all laws. Where it breaks down is when the legislature changes its interpretation standards. And at that point any law can be interpreted to mean anything and rule of law breaks down, so it doesn't really matter what laws you have or don't have on the books.
reply
upvoteby jamespo9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
a 4 month old account making a bad faith argument, well I never!
reply
upvoteby dlev_pika10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Privacy? Do you think have that now?
reply
upvoteby reaperducer10 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Seems difficult to stomp out effectively

So just give up because something is hard? Sounds like the tech industry and its never-ending quest for low-hanging fruit.

"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas."

reply
upvoteby dpoloncsak10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I'm sorry if my comment came off dismissive, I was just remarking the idea of banning social media seems like we're going down the wrong alley. I like other commenter's ideas of outlawing the underlying tech. I'm more-so just asking how to make a distinction between a post on Reddit (commonly called social media) and a post on Stack-Overflow (not commonly referred to as social media). Discord vs Teams...etc.

I think user 0x5FC3 correctly identifies the root of the issue, and any (if implemented) regulation should be based on the algorithmic serving, but I hold a firm belief that you cannot and should not try to outlaw math. From my first glance at this issue, it seems tricky

reply
upvoteby reaperducer9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It still reads like a bunch of deflection, which is the usual response from industries from big oil to fast food to tobacco to pharmaceuticals.

Delay delay delay and continue reap the profits in the meantime by making people talk in circles instead of addressing the problem. Let Q4 figure it out, just keep the Q2 gravy train rolling.

Also, nobody is trying to outlaw math. That's just a silly hyperbolic talking point.

reply
upvoteby dpoloncsak8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Mate understand I am not the industry trying to deflect, I am a human asking how to clearly define 'social media' to encapsulate all of the sites we consider 'social media' without damaging perfectly fine applications, or if we can come up with a better solution than 'ban it all'.

HN is usually pretty good about brainstorming as a group on topics like these, and I value the insights of others.

I'm a SysAdmin. I'm not about to write the law, just trying to partake in the discussion

Also, the comment I referred to was quite literally talking about banning the use of algorithms to serve content. I'll ask you what that is, if it's not banning math?

reply
upvoteby spunker5408 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Saying “ban social media” is a lot like saying to solve lung cancer we must “ban cigarette lighters” when lighters are actually quite useful outside of smoking cigarettes and banning lighters doesn’t really fix the problem.
reply
upvoteby ptero9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> So just give up because something is hard?

No, but a good first step would be to widely acknowledge that the problem is hard. And thus is not solvable by a quick fix of a type "let's ban <something>". Otherwise we will keep trying quick fixes and local optimizations that will be just as quickly subverted by the deep pocketed incumbents.

reply
upvoteby Ajedi3210 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby hoppyhoppy211 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
We could start by stomping out the Linux kernel mailing lists; that cancer is at the root of so many other social networks' software.
reply