|
slurm posted:He got the contract for Rocket Cargo which is the surface-to-surface Starship. That would be a pretty big logistical capability for Russia in somewhere like Kherson where they've been having trouble with bridges or conventional air logistics. Well in 4 years when starship is ready this might be an issue.
|
# ? Oct 4, 2022 21:53 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 10:55 |
|
cgeq posted:Are you sure? Cable TV seems much better than Youtube. I mean, maybe it doesn't prevent the creation, but it should hobble its ability to spread and snowball and thus make it easier to moderate.
|
# ? Oct 4, 2022 21:54 |
|
cgeq posted:Are you sure? Cable TV seems much better than Youtube. I mean, maybe it doesn't prevent the creation, but it should hobble its ability to spread and snowball and thus make it easier to moderate. Fox News is on cable. It's obviously impossible to verify but I would be shocked if youtube recommending Jordan Peterson videos to viewers who were not already watching right wing content had radicalized anywhere near as many people as Tucker Carlson.
|
# ? Oct 4, 2022 22:04 |
|
Fox News viewership is trending up into the mid 70s now, he's radicalizing old people?
|
# ? Oct 4, 2022 23:40 |
|
cgeq posted:Are you sure? Cable TV seems much better than Youtube. I mean, maybe it doesn't prevent the creation, but it should hobble its ability to spread and snowball and thus make it easier to moderate. Cable TV has pushed reactionary sentiment too and is far less useful than ugc sites like YouTube for acquiring useful info/skills of any depth or outside a narrow spectrum.
|
# ? Oct 4, 2022 23:44 |
|
cgeq posted:Oof, I dunno. I think proper moderation is the easiest solution, but I'm ignoring that because the companies don't want it and no one's going to make them do it. All parties seem like they would rather just burn it all to the ground rather than put any effort into a workable solution. As it comes to filters, sorting, and tagging... I mean no offense, but it seems like you're pushing for "some curation, but not enough to lead to bad things". Are tags affixed by the creators? If so, whose responsibility is it to make sure the minecraft tag (or exact search term) isn't overrun by explicit pornography and white supremacy videos? We've seen from social trending topics that any popular tag will be filled with irrelevant and, at times, actively harmful content, which knocks out letting the audience assign tags. If youtube is responsible for tagging (or for upkeep on creator/audience tags), we're back to needing full and faultless moderation to avoid the tragic consequences of Gonzalez. cgeq posted:I'm not saying any of this is good but it should get the platform off the hook for "editorializing" and it would still provide users with a (horribly lovely... or maybe just old-fashioned) way to access content. It would completely change the entire ecosystem and the business model of the platform and content creators. The internet ad market would lose a huge revenue channel. But it's an option that achieves the goals and probably still leaves society better off. As to the betterment of society, a series of decisions that futher concentrates power in the hands of the already rich and powerful while erecting massive barriers to dethroning them (removing S230 protections, requiring full moderation, eliminating discovery logic) would need to prevent an awful lot of ills to outweigh the harm it does (and the positive aspects of algorithmic curation it'd kill). YMMV Robviously posted:My guess is he just figured out something that's going to end up coming out in discovery of the lawsuit that he wants to get around. One is the chancery court, in another case, affirming that the shares of a Delaware corporation are personal property and the court can use them to address its judgment same as it could any other property: https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnMLipton/status/1577090454754979840/photo/2 (Paraphrasing: If Musks loses hard enough for specific performance and tries to duck it, a remedy for the courts is forcing the sale of his Tesla stock) The latter is that the court ordered what could be catastrophic discovery from Musk's team last night: https://mobile.twitter.com/chancery_daily/status/1577359588151672844 (In brief: Musk amended his stance to include the revelations of Peiter 'Mudge' Zatko, claiming he was fired as retribution for and to prevent future whistleblowing about Twitter's security and business practices. Zatko was an executive in charge of Trust & Safety at Twitter until he got fired in January. Previous discovery found an email to Musk's legal firm claiming to be "a former Exec at Twitter leading teams directly involving Trust & Safety/Content Moderation", asking to be contacted via "alternate secure means" to share info about twitter. The judge (mostly) granted Twitter's request that they not be forced to take Musk and Zatko's word that the anonymous former exec was definitely not Zatko and even if it was, we promise nobody followed up on the email. If discovery shows either of those to be false, Musk would be in markedly worse shape than he is even today.) Eta: evilweasel posted:yeah, I would also say that "this poorly thought out product design causes measurable harm" is the essence of products liability, and there's not really a good reason it shouldn't apply to the recommendation algorithms. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Oct 5, 2022 |
# ? Oct 5, 2022 00:30 |
|
edit: n/m tired of algorithm chat
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 00:49 |
|
Paracaidas posted:Do we have other examples of companies being liable for the measurable harm of a third party's products? Not trying to be cute, just unfamiliar with similar situations. Yeah - it's the way that products liability works.. The way products liability works is that anyone in the chain is liable. So take, say, talc. It is alleged talc powder contains asbestos because mined talc is generally contaminated with asbestos. Asbestos powder is, uh, not great for your heath. If you get mesothelioma (a cancer effectively only caused by asbestos) and you believe talc powder caused it, you can sue (a) The place you bought it (say, a pharmacy); (b) The manufacturer (say, Johnson & Johnson); or (c) the mine that originally supplied the contaminated talc. You, as the injured party, can sue anyone in that chain and generally products liability is strict liability: the pharmacy is liable to you even though they had no idea asbestos was in it. It becomes their problem to turn around and sue either the manufacturer or the mine and say that party is required to indemnify them, as the real wrongdoer. So the normal way liability would work, exported to Youtube, is if Youtube is serving up nonstop ISIS propaganda, even by accident, and that causes harm, Youtube is liable. It can turn around and sue whoever put the videos up if it wants, but the fact they're in Syria and don't have any money is Youtube's problem, not whoever was harmed. Section 230 (arguably) overrides normal products liability rules (which, incidentally, are usually state law, not federal law) to change that default rule to say only the original uploader is liable.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 01:25 |
|
Paracaidas posted:"Proper moderation" to prevent hosting the video in this case, on the scale of Youtube (to say nothing of tiktok, fb, and other socials), approaches a global full employment plan. It’s beyond a global full employment plan, YouTube as it exists today is completely infeasible to moderate, full stop. So, why not forcibly scale it down to the point that it can be feasibly moderated? Maybe sites like that shouldn’t exist because they aren’t worth the social costs of profit-driven algorithmic moderation.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 01:43 |
|
It would be great if this would lead to the internet being decentralized but this feels like a We Can't Have Nice Things type situation where this would cause things things to get worse instead
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 02:04 |
|
I've thought about this very cursorily in the shower, but when you compare the average quality of content between traditional TV and creator platforms like youtube/instagram/tiktok/whatever it's night and day. There's a much higher bar for quality because there is a finite amount of programming slots. If something sucks they will put something better in its place. On youtube the good stuff isn't what floats to the top, it's the stuff that gets the most clicks. That's why you have 10 minute long videos to show you how to do a 20 second activity, thumbnails where everyone is making a weird psycho face, and yes, extremist content. Going back to a much more limited platform like cable tv wouldn't be better in all cases, but I think I, personally, would prefer it to what we have now. Either that or a much more segmented and regional internet.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 02:54 |
|
You can just log off
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 03:05 |
|
But I still have to live in a society constantly subjected to the brain poisoning though.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 03:11 |
|
PhazonLink posted:Fox News viewership is trending up into the mid 70s now, he's radicalizing old people? It’s not the most pressing problem, but it is a problem.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 03:13 |
|
Radicalizing anyone is a problem. Plus, even though old people might theoretically be closer to death, they're more reliable voters.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 03:29 |
|
Regarding Elons plan: https://twitter.com/silviakillings/status/1577375795424673814?t=ly1_2jIwFTKSuZogu6Na2w&s=19 He'll only buy Twitter at the original price if the lawsuit against him is dismissed. Even for Elon this is transparently stupid E: https://twitter.com/chancery_daily/status/1577377535255613442?t=vUkWbzgAPlkTF5QFjRQPtg&s=19 Yeah, there it is, Elon's proposals still says he retains the right to pursue his counterclaim if anything interferes in the timely closing of the deal. A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Oct 5, 2022 |
# ? Oct 5, 2022 03:45 |
|
He pinky swears.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 03:48 |
|
I think online video is pretty broadly popular even if social media like facebook/twitter maybe aren't. I wonder if some crazy broad decision that cripples or kills youtube combined with eliminating abortion rights within a year or so would make court packing or other reforms politically realistic. They're kind of going after people's daily lives when you start taking away their funny videos and whatnot
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 04:06 |
|
Consider me duly enlightened. Thanks!
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 04:27 |
|
Big government's ban on flavored tobacco products and advertising to children is taking Juul into bankruptcy. This is a "restructuring" bankruptcy proceeding and not a "liquidation to pay creditors" bankruptcy proceeding. https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1577497576504434690 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Oct 5, 2022 |
# ? Oct 5, 2022 04:31 |
|
The idea that YouTube doesn’t bear an editorial responsibility for the suggestions generated by its recommendation engine seems bizarre to me. Of course they do, because the decision to turn recommendations over to a black box (it’s not a black box, YT just wants you to believe it is) is itself an editorial decision that they are culpable for. And fixing that doesn’t mean banning all algorithms, whatever that means. I think one of the primary criteria ought to be whether the recommendation is user directed, such as a search results or channel subscriptions. Compare that to most of YouTube’s recommendations, which are shoved in your face whether you want them or not. That doesn’t get rid of the objectionable content (which should still be a priority), but it would prevent your interest in gaming videos from being an on-ramp into right wing content without some effort on your part.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 05:20 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Big government's ban on flavored tobacco products and advertising to children is taking Juul into bankruptcy. alas, someday we'll get to the latter and apply it to its parent industry.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 06:11 |
|
A big flaming stink posted:Regarding Elons plan: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he currently being sued to force him to purchase Twitter, because he tried to back out of purchasing Twitter, after he had already signed the binding agreement to purchase it? And now he wants them to drop the lawsuit on the promise that he won't immediately shout out "Syke!" and run out of office the moment the lawsuit is dropped? I mean, there's literally no way out of buying twitter unless they drop the lawsuit at this point, right? Please correct me on any of this that I got wrong, this whole story is exceedingly stupid and has been going on for far longer than I care for anything involving Musk or Twitter to be taking up any space in my brain. I just want this story to end so I can have a hearty laugh at someone's misfortune and promptly stop giving a gently caress about Musk or Twitter again.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 13:01 |
|
Baronash posted:The idea that YouTube doesn’t bear an editorial responsibility for the suggestions generated by its recommendation engine seems bizarre to me. Of course they do, because the decision to turn recommendations over to a black box (it’s not a black box, YT just wants you to believe it is) is itself an editorial decision that they are culpable for. I don't see any sense to a system where "surfacing" a video to a user in any fashion (algorithm or otherwise) should give heightened liability (damages is a different argument, but if the threshhold liability isn't met, damages are moot). If the hosting of an underlying video would not incur liability on the host - but the instant it makes a video "viewable" to someone browsing the site, you have created a blind document repository that loses most of its value to the host. YouTube is not a viable business if it's 100% private links that are shared on other sites (not to mention those other sites would soon crack down on sharing these dangerous YouTube links).
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 13:19 |
|
Baronash posted:The idea that YouTube doesn’t bear an editorial responsibility for the suggestions generated by its recommendation engine seems bizarre to me. Of course they do, because the decision to turn recommendations over to a black box (it’s not a black box, YT just wants you to believe it is) is itself an editorial decision that they are culpable for. Youtube and their algorithm are INSANE. Anne Reardon (very famous debunker of all the bullshit algorithm exploiting 'hack' videos) did a video about how dangerous fractal wood burning is and how it was causing deaths. Youtube's algorithm banned her video warning not to try to extremely dangerous thing but left all the videos describing in detail how to take apart a microwave and use electricity to burn wood. Here's her talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZrynWtBDTE
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 15:10 |
|
Randalor posted:And now he wants them to drop the lawsuit on the promise that he won't immediately shout out "Syke!" and run out of office the moment the lawsuit is dropped? if he did that Twitter would just sue him again, in the same court, and I doubt the chancellor would be very amused about the situation. Does not seem like a good idea.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 15:34 |
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Youtube and their algorithm are INSANE. Anne Reardon (very famous debunker of all the bullshit algorithm exploiting 'hack' videos) did a video about how dangerous fractal wood burning is and how it was causing deaths. Youtube's algorithm banned her video warning not to try to extremely dangerous thing but left all the videos describing in detail how to take apart a microwave and use electricity to burn wood.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 15:35 |
|
Devor posted:I don't see any sense to a system where "surfacing" a video to a user in any fashion (algorithm or otherwise) should give heightened liability (damages is a different argument, but if the threshhold liability isn't met, damages are moot). That's not what I said, though I posted in the middle of the night and it's definitely less clear than I intended. I think there's a distinction between different methods of what you referred to as "surfacing" a video, which I'll broadly put in two categories of "user-directed" and "Youtube-directed." User-directed methods would be things like subscriptions and Youtube search. In those cases, you as the user are setting the parameters and the platform is trying to serve the most relevant content. Youtube-directed methods would be things like the current YT homepage or the column of suggested videos next to every video on their site. The user isn't asking for these recommendations or taking any active role in setting the parameters for what is displayed, except indirectly by how Youtube interprets their viewing history. The second category is largely where you see issues arising, and I disagree that these features are somehow intrinsic to Youtube's business. My argument would be that Youtube-directed methods of surfacing videos don't need to exist if Youtube is going to claim that they don't have the ability to fight the stranglehold that hateful content has on these recommendation systems. fake edit: Kind of an aside, but I just gave it a shot and in a fresh VM I went from Lindsay Ellis' Hobbit retrospective to a Jordan Peterson interview in 5 clicks, all without scrolling down the list of suggestions and always selecting recommendations with at least 1 million views. Heck, one video in, and my homepage was already full of "SJWs are KILLING media"-style rants. I'll admit that's kind of stacking the deck in my favor given the current discourse, but I was going to illustrate the same point with gaming videos and I had trouble finding popular ones that weren't directly recommending alt-lite content. It's not some quirk of their system that only exists on the margins, it's exactly how they intend for their recommendation system to work.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 15:47 |
|
lobster shirt posted:if he did that Twitter would just sue him again, in the same court, and I doubt the chancellor would be very amused about the situation. Does not seem like a good idea. Yeah, but imagine that instead of a rational human being you are Elon Musk.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 15:51 |
|
Randalor posted:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he currently being sued to force him to purchase Twitter, because he tried to back out of purchasing Twitter, after he had already signed the binding agreement to purchase it? https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1577417197361590272?s=20&t=zOrrY_OfRHovNqn_c7hC9w The whole situation is beyond me, everytime I think about it too hard I start to smell burning toast.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 16:04 |
|
Clarste posted:Yeah, but imagine that instead of a rational human being you are Elon Musk. yes but presumably he has lawyers advising him. I think it's far more likely that due to some combination of not wanting to lose at trial, not wanting to be deposed, and not wanting any more embarrassing texts/emails/information to come out, Musk has basically decided to surrender and buy Twitter as he originally signed a binding agreement to do. And anyway with Twitter stock up so much since this announcement, he isn't paying quite so high a premium on the share price. Great job buddy!
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 16:25 |
|
There's a very real chance that the lawyers advising Musk here are the ones who DM'd him on Twitter after he said he was looking for bare knuckle brawler lawyers or whatever nonsense he phrased it with. God willing the courts force him to take ownership and he does something good for once in shuttering the whole thing out of spite.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 16:50 |
|
lobster shirt posted:yes but presumably he has lawyers advising him. I think it's far more likely that due to some combination of not wanting to lose at trial, not wanting to be deposed, and not wanting any more embarrassing texts/emails/information to come out, Musk has basically decided to surrender and buy Twitter as he originally signed a binding agreement to do. And anyway with Twitter stock up so much since this announcement, he isn't paying quite so high a premium on the share price. Great job buddy! I'm not going to pretend to be surprised when he does the really stupid thing despite what lawyers are telling him. At that level of wealth the courts are just another tool utilized to get what you want. Laws are for the little people. This dumbass act isn't following the same script as the rest of his life because he's doing the thing that other money cares about; loving with the money and other money-havers.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 16:53 |
|
Epic High Five posted:God willing the courts force him to take ownership and he does something good for once in shuttering the whole thing out of spite. I honestly don't know what he's going to do. To greatly oversimplify it, he's got to wring more out of twitter than it already (arguably unsustainably) makes ... way more ... just to service the debt he puts himself in to pay off the purchase. What's he going to do, cram even more ads on there and accelerate viewership decline? poach even more user data and sell it to the absolute worst people? How do you wring blood from the stone? There's absolutely no way he gets away ahead on this. Forget the myth of the self-made billionaire, he's the self-owned billionaire
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 17:00 |
|
Kavros posted:I honestly don't know what he's going to do. To greatly oversimplify it, he's got to wring more out of twitter than it already (arguably unsustainably) makes ... way more ... just to service the debt he puts himself in to pay off the purchase. If I were him I'd merge it into one of my existing government money sinks to get it backstopped and profit guaranteed by the Federal government as that's the primary role it plays when you're that rich. Call it Twit-X or whatever, put a spaceship on the logo, never stop talking about how it's increasing freedom and freeze peach, and pay 10,000 people $100 each to flood search engines with positive spins on the whole thing. Probably he's just going to fold every bit of speculative value it has into the nesting dolls of fraud and criminality that is modern finance and make a killing by moving numbers around on a spreadsheet, because it'd either be let him get away with it or bring the whole house of cards down. In either case I guess.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 17:06 |
|
And that worthless son of a bitch will destroy a lot of folk's - very vulnerable folk's - livelihoods, from various indie rpg makers to indie game devs to camgirls. I hate that piece of poo poo, so, so, so much.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 17:06 |
|
Epic High Five posted:There's a very real chance that the lawyers advising Musk here are the ones who DM'd him on Twitter after he said he was looking for bare knuckle brawler lawyers or whatever nonsense he phrased it with. I can't say it didn't happen, but Skadden's very much the kind of biglaw firm that he was trashing with that set of tweets. Even biggger than the firm names he actually dropped. Their revenue's in the billions. ...and insofar as Musk was deriding big law firms as corrupt outfits he'd never work with, well, a while back Skadden also had to pay a few million in fines and millions more in a settlement as a result of their work for Paul Manafort and Viktor Yanukovych without registering themselves as an agent of the government of Ukraine. Manafort also allegedly used that deal to get Skadden to hire his daughter. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Oct 5, 2022 |
# ? Oct 5, 2022 17:46 |
|
Randalor posted:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he currently being sued to force him to purchase Twitter, because he tried to back out of purchasing Twitter, after he had already signed the binding agreement to purchase it? Correct. He already contractually committed to buying Twitter, and has no legal grounds to get out of buying Twitter. The only way he's not buying Twitter now is if a Delaware Chancery Court judge decides they don't give a gently caress about contracts, which is incredibly unlikely given that Delaware is the central hub of US corporate law. The entire reason he's being sued right now is because he's trying to back out of buying Twitter, even though he had no real legal grounds to do so. It seems like he hoped to find something incredibly humiliating or incriminating in discovery, and use the threat of disclosing that publicly to force Twitter to back down. But it turns out that, despite the fact that Musk himself largely refused to cooperate with discovery and tried to cover up the existence of a bunch of stuff, Twitter found way more humiliating and/or incriminating stuff from Elon's side. His billionaire friends have been thoroughly embarrassed, he's been caught in several lies that are guaranteed to completely doom his case at trial, and now Twitter's lawyers are starting to find evidence of even more misconduct. His plan has thoroughly backfired at this point, as not only did it completely fail, but it also gave Twitter a very good case for insisting that they can't trust anything he says. His current offer of "please drop the lawsuit and then I'll buy Twitter if Twitter follows the agreement" is unlikely to be taken seriously by anyone actually involved in the case, especially since he makes a point of not dropping his claims that Twitter broke the agreement. Since Twitter's current management does not trust Musk at all, they are unlikely to take Musk at his word. Without some kind of ironclad irrevocable guarantee, they'll try their best to keep the lawsuit going until that $44 billion check clears. Kavros posted:I honestly don't know what he's going to do. To greatly oversimplify it, he's got to wring more out of twitter than it already (arguably unsustainably) makes ... way more ... just to service the debt he puts himself in to pay off the purchase. Based on both his public claims and private stuff that came out during discovery, Musk's plans for Twitter include convincing a bunch of people to sign up for optional paid subscription services (like Twitter Blue), mass layoffs of Twitter employees to cut costs, maybe a Twitter-based payments system, and assuming Twitter's actual human userbase will triple within three years after he bans all the bots and unbans all the brave free speech warriors of the far right. There's also other ideas he's tossed around but clearly hasn't thought through, like charging important people a fee to tweet, creating a blockchain-based Twitter database to resist censorship, or turning Twitter into a WeChat competitor.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 17:48 |
|
Kavros posted:I honestly don't know what he's going to do. To greatly oversimplify it, he's got to wring more out of twitter than it already (arguably unsustainably) makes ... way more ... just to service the debt he puts himself in to pay off the purchase. Uh, you are clearly forgetting about the brilliant plan to make it pay-to-tweet which will both make him billions AND drive dogecoin to the moon!
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 18:26 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 10:55 |
|
California has become the second state to legalize jaywalking (Virginia just barely beat them to it). It is currently legal in California, Virginia, and Kansas City, MO. https://twitter.com/badler/status/1577749464860790785 quote:Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, on Friday signed the Freedom to Walk Act, which allows pedestrians to cross the street outside of an intersection without being ticketed, as long as it’s safe to do so. Until now, jaywalkers in California could receive a fine of up to $198, which could end up costing even more in court fees.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2022 21:10 |