USCE Autumn: Well Actually, This IS somethingpedantic.com

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Autumn: Well Actually, This IS somethingpedantic.com

«‹›4 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

edit: nevermind, this is too inside baseball.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Sep 28, 2022

# ¿ Sep 28, 2022 23:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 06:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Zachack posted:

Does that mean I can tell a restaurant that their nasty cucumber water is unhealthy?

Edit: wait come back, I need to justify avoiding cucumber water.

It would mean cucumber water can't be sold as healthy, nor any other flavored water. If you're going to say water is healthy, there is zero reason for this, and it will just feed into misinformation/scaremongering about the flavor ingredients.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2022 23:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

What's the historical reason for firearms being lumped together with alcohol and tobacco

The org was created as part of the treasury department that handled regulation of these things when they were all major lines for organized crime, dating back to prohibition. For a long time it was sort of the top anti-organized crime entity at IRS.

vvvv tbf looking at the wikipedia entry I forgot all about the pre-Volstead stuff

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Oct 2, 2022

# ¿ Oct 2, 2022 03:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kalit posted:

By "a higher level", I mean through things that will make a more, permanent impact versus something like "out of sight, out of mind"*. I know this is vague, but that's because it's probably slightly different for each issue. But, as a high level view, I think educating people from an early age is extremely important. Also, giving support to those who need it so they don't feel left behind and turn to [bad] radical ideas.

*My words, not trying to put words in your mouth. I just feel like it's easy to fall into thinking X is a huge issue because the internet has given it more visibility, even though it's less of an issue now than it had been in the past.

"Higher order" might be clearer than "higher level" for that meaning. Policies addressing such activities would need to vary by subject content, and would need to come from multiple directions- education is probably one of the hardest places for government regulation to directly address them, because it's another highly protected area.

As I've discussed in the past, product regulation is a core element to this activity because many forms of extremism are self-perpetuating due to a profit motive- alt-med and antivaxx and many fringe political groups persist because there's a direct or indirect way to sell something to participants. Improved regulation and enforcement of tax preparers, MLMs and dietary supplements would remove the incentives that drive people like alex jones or many right wing fringe groups.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2022 21:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kalit posted:

So, can you help me understand what your point is? What are the extremely obvious differences between a static list of recommendations posted in, for example, a book and a dynamic algorithm generated by youtube? I'm genuinely confused.

One distinction with algorithmic feeds is that they present the user with the impression that the information is more broadly representative, and, within the platform, exclude other sources.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2022 05:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Riptor posted:

Putting aside how this can't possibly be true for "algorithmic feeds" across the board, I'm not sure how you can even come to this conclusion about YouTube specifically. Their recommendation algorithm is specifically providing recommendations specific to your interests and watch history; how is that interpreted as being "broadly representative"? It's the opposite.

The user does not perceive or have explained the actual structure of the recommendation system, so the degree and form of exclusion isn't clear- and this has ramifications for the perception of the scope of information that isn't included, a fishbowl effect that's part of the radicalization pipeline. Note also that algo classifies what counts as "interests", using consumer patterns but also design decisions by the people making it. The process isn't somehow pure or directly reflective of the user's preference. The ability of these platforms to have this homophilic effect is part of their commodification and appeal, even as it's obviously perverse- which is why these methods are both proprietary and obfuscated.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2022 15:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It may be productive to work more closely from the petition that this is all about. Here are a couple quotes from it relevant to recent claims:

At p. 31:

quote:

The text of section 230 clearly distinguishes between a system that provides to a user information that the user is actually seeking (as does a search engine) and a system utilized by an internet company to direct at a user information (such as a recommendation) that the company wants the user to have. Section 230(b) states that �It is the policy of the United States ... to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the internet and other computer services.� 47 U.S.C. � 230(b) (emphasis added). Congress found that �[t]he developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services ... offers users a greater degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.� 47 U.S.C. � 230(a) (emphasis added). The core function of a search engine advances that policy, because it enables a user to select what information he or she will receive; on the other hand, when an interactive computer service makes a recommendation to a user, it is the service not the user that determines that the user will receive that recommendation.

At p. 35:

quote:

The decision below insisted it was holding only that recommendations by an interactive computer service are protected by section 230 if those recommendations are made in a �neutral� manner. �We only reiterate that a website�s use of content-neutral algorithms, without more, does not expose it to liability....� [41a]. �[The complaint does not] allege that Google�s algorithms treated ISIS-created content differently than any other third-party created content.� Id. The Second
Circuit majority in Force also stressed that the recommendations there were formulated in a neutral manner. [934 F.3d at 69-70]. But if making recommendations falls within the functions of a �publisher� under section 230, there would be no basis for distinguishing between neutrally formulated and deliberately pro-terrorist recommendations. The core consequence of a claim treating a defendant as a �publisher� of content created by another is that the defendant is protected from liability when it decides whether or not to publish that content. Under the terms of section 230, YouTube would unquestionably be protected if it chose to widely distribute a favorable review of ISIS videos that was taken from a terrorist publication and yet were to refuse to permit the United States Department of Defense to upload an analysis condemning those videos.

That was exactly the problem in Sikhs for Justice, Inc. v. Facebook, [697 Fed.Appx. 526 (9th Cir. 2017)], discussed in Malwarebytes, [141 S.Ct. at 17 (statement of Justice Thomas)]. The plaintiff in that case sought to place on its Facebook page materials strongly critical of the role of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in condoning the 2002 massacre of hundreds of Muslims in riots in Gujarat. Facebook removed that criticism of Prime Minister from the plaintiff �s Facebook page in India, although not elsewhere in the world, an action evidently intended to curry favor with the Indian government. When Sikhs for Justice sought an injunction to restore those materials to its Facebook page, Facebook successfully argued that section 230 gave it an absolute right to censor such anti-terrorist materials.[19] There is no possible textual basis for distinguishing between non-neutral posting policies and non-neutral recommendation algorithms, and no conceivable justification for distinguishing between the murder of Muslims in India and the murder of Nohemi Gonzalez in France.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2022 15:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Big government's ban on flavored tobacco products and advertising to children is taking Juul into bankruptcy.

This is a "restructuring" bankruptcy proceedings and not a "liquidation to pay creditors" bankruptcy proceeding.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1577497576504434690

alas, someday we'll get to the latter and apply it to its parent industry.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2022 06:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Full statement is here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/

quote:

As I often said during my campaign for President, no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana. Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit. Criminal records for marijuana possession have also imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities. And while white and Black and brown people use marijuana at similar rates, Black and brown people have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at disproportionate rates.

Today, I am announcing three steps that I am taking to end this failed approach.

First, I am announcing a pardon of all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana. I have directed the Attorney General to develop an administrative process for the issuance of certificates of pardon to eligible individuals. There are thousands of people who have prior Federal convictions for marijuana possession, who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result. My action will help relieve the collateral consequences arising from these convictions.

Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses. Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.

Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Federal law currently classifies marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the classification meant for the most dangerous substances. This is the same schedule as for heroin and LSD, and even higher than the classification of fentanyl and methamphetamine � the drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic.

Finally, even as federal and state regulation of marijuana changes, important limitations on trafficking, marketing, and under-age sales should stay in place.

Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It�s time that we right these wrongs.

A lot of the review for schedule revision is up in the air- Biden's not explicitly asking for complete descheduling. I interpret this as the admin having received word from Senate actors that the cannabis legalization bills are moribund and needing to take action for an October surprise.

I gotta note that while I believe the market's not as bonkers as it was say five years ago, the actual process of moving cannabis to legal status and the ensuing regulatory buildout is an absolute nightmare- we've really not got any precedent for it federally, and there are a bunch of severe problems not remotely addressed by the state regs. I say "though the market's not as bonkers" because a lot of the issues come from the sheer degree of capitalism headed into it from all directions- big ag, small ag, "small" ag, pharma, organized crime, dietary supplements, tobacco, and venture capitalists of all flavors have been trying to tear off their slice of what they see as the next alcohol or tobacco market, and that is a lot of externalities being constructed and exploited by every means possible. This is part of why the cannabis bills have all gotten stuck, despite not having the same partisan divide as usual.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Oct 6, 2022

# ¿ Oct 6, 2022 20:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bird in a Blender posted:

Is the last part that much of an issue now? Weed is legal in 19 states, a lot of this apparatus exists already. I would think enough states have gone through the trial and error of legalization that the feds could figure it out.

It's a massive issue. Most of the federal agencies have been unable to do much of any prep without a legislative mandate. The states are no better at regulating the incredibly overpopulated VC-infested market of cannabis products than they are at individually regulating other less messy categories like land use. Both in terms of what's on the books and what's actually enforced (two massively different things), the state regulatory systems aren't even competent to, for example, handle pesticide regulation, heavy metals(a big issue in cannabis), adulteration issues, and testing fraud in just the agricultural product. That's not touching manufacturing compliance, interstate commerce, international certs, ag subsidies, marketing issues, FDA product classification and related labeling regs, or IP, to start. Each of those could be several paragraphs of how companies are currently flaunting and/or capturing state law, let alone any potential federal framework- and any individual regulatory issue has at least seven figures of lobbying on each side of it.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Oct 6, 2022

# ¿ Oct 6, 2022 21:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

American teens continue to love vaping tobacco products and (inexplicably) chewing tobacco.

~15% of high-schoolers are regular e-cigarette users.

1 in 4 high-schoolers who have ever used an e-cig use them daily.

Nearly 90% of them use flavored tobacco products.

9% of high-schoolers have used chewing tobacco/"chaw"/"smokeless tobacco".

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1578138894247280641

It's going to take generations to claw this back, and a lot of work and a series of consistent Dem administrations, too. Chewing tobacco's popular because it's got context-laden addiction behavior cues, plus there's a persistent false belief that it's safe because it's not burnt.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2022 22:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Zachack posted:

What does this mean?

I ask because chaw is loving nasty and I've never met a young person or even middle-aged peer who doesn't view it as a gross blight, but maybe there's a PornHub category for "Woman, Skoal".

Just that when someone develops an addictive behavior, the context or the actions of the behavior can become a sort of triggering and compulsory ritual, which for some people serves as a reinforcing element that strengthens the addiction - this often becomes a sort of "culture" around use. Someone who fixates on the physical aspects of chaw because it's what they're exposed to will struggle to swap to other products.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Is it just absurdly easy to buy nicotine vape cartridges and chewing tobacco underage now? I can't imagine that most of them are stealing Juul pods and chaw from their parents and they would need a lot of product for ~14% + ~9% of teens to be using them regularly/daily.

On the e-cig front, the whole tech's designed to be really easy to start up and sell and the industry built out a huge "mom and pop" middle market as an interfering constituency. In practice, the lack of barriers to entry means there's a bazillion ways to sell vapes, including to children, and generally flaunt the law. FDA's sending "you're doing blatantly illegal things" warning letters to four or five vape companies practically daily, and it's barely making a dent.

to wit:
https://ejuice.deals/collections/candy-king Some of the brands on this storefront will be from overseas, a bunch will be from common white label sellers, and many, many more will be "startups" run out of storage units and the like. There are a lot of physical retail stores, and a lot more digital storefronts.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Oct 7, 2022

# ¿ Oct 7, 2022 01:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

On Terra Firma posted:

The companies making disposables, which is pretty much all kids are using, aren't "mom and pop" shops. They're fly by night manufacturers operating out of southern china that just rebrand whenever they need to slip under the radar. They're very very different from most shops that sell liquid by the bottle for refillable tank based systems. It's very easy to lump them together but the set ups and the people who use them are vastly different.

Even Puff bar is in a whole other classification compared to Juul even though at a glance they look and operate very similarly.

I know this just seems like dumb semantics because nicotine is nicotine but the way all the segments work is vastly different from one another and lumping them all together is a really big mistake. If a regulatory agency can't differentiate between something used for a mod versus a disposable synthetic nicotine puff bar knock off then they're going to be pretty much useless at doing what they're supposed to be doing.

You, uh, are doing the exact thing I just described- using the supposedly sympathetic retail scale industry to undermine the concept of regulation. Setting aside the unsupported claim about the sourcing of disposable vapes, I am pretty confident that the e-cigarette industry isn't just having compliance issues with foreign importers. Those are all domestic presence companies, and they're all benefitting from rhetoric that throws chaff about each others' scale of activity.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2022 02:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

On Terra Firma posted:

I don't know why you need to be condescending about any of this or attributing some weird motive to what I'm saying. I'm making the point that there are a lot of complicated elements to this "industry" that aren't even remotely homogenous aside from almost all of the products containing some form of nicotine. Altria isn't the same as Candy King. You keep bunching them up like they are and it's just not a helpful way of understanding that world and it's the trap proponents of regulation and prohibition keep falling into.

The vast majority of MDO's issued by the FDA were for open systems ie not disposable or pod based. Those are not what youth are using, but that's where the FDA put most of it's resources. When it came to the big players like Juul, they fumbled and hosed it all up because they didn't even bother to review any of the scientific data Juul supplied with the application. Whether the science substantiated the claim that their products were "for the good of public health" doesn't even matter at that point because it tied the FDA's hands. All the while Puff and these other weird companies that appeared overnight started being used by teens. Now it's almost entirely what they use.

My point is whatever nefarious motives the "industry" may have the FDA have taken a bunch of counterproductive performative half measures that created a hole for a new subset of product it's incapable of regulating, got itself tied up in a bunch of lawsuits over shoddy MDO's, and shut down a lot of companies that were producing products for open systems that kids weren't even using to any substantial degree in the first place. All of this is due to the FDA and organizations that want everything off the shelves not even attempting to understand the industry it's trying to regulate. Whether you fundamentally disagree with me about the role of this stuff or not all of this is a problem the FDA isn't equipped to solve at the moment.

You just did it again, shifting the blame within industry, and from there to the regulator, to avoid the information already addressing your previous claims. An additional feature of all the domestic sellers I linked past the warning letters? They're all selling disposable vapes. That the industry has made itself as difficult to regulate as possible does not somehow absolve it of its harms.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2022 04:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

and the assumption I am calling out as incorrect is that 'the algorithm' is something meaningfully distinct from 'the desires of the people running the companies in question.'

So you're taking the position that algorithmic sorting functions, including ML-based ones, do not produce effects outside those intended by their designers?

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 02:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I've gotten several different interpretations here and not much of a clear statement. Are you saying, for example, the "suicide kit" product recommendations at amazon weren't contrary to the designs of the people at amazon?

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 02:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

correct. they considered the outcome value-neutral at worst. they were making extra money by selling customers additional products other people wanted to buy-system functioning as designed, and as the gun companies have successfully argued time and time again, it is not their problem what the products get used for. if noone outside the company had made a stink about it, they gladly would have kept doing it until the sun went dark.

this was the algorithm functioning as desired. the apathy of its designers to any potential loss of human life was not a bug, but an indication it was functioning as planned.

then outside political pressure adjusted the desires of the algorithm's custodians, and miraculously, something that had been functioning perfectly the day before was suddenly decreed to be faulty.

As presented your argument appears completely tautological. It is unclear that there is any set of facts which could disprove it, because it's asserting the system and its designers' intentions are a unity, and any change to the system can only reflect an instant change in those intentions.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Oct 11, 2022

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 02:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

not a unity. cosmetic fluctuations, those the organization does not consider contrary to its aims, are not cause for removal. 2016 polls could claim Texas was going blue and be considered credible! it was only if your system predicted Trump might win that it needed correction before release to the public.

it is only results contrary to the designers' intent that do not make it live. results the designers do not care about are free to flourish. this results in problems when something abruptly makes the designers care about something they did not care about before.

if you can show an organization making a reversal on a core policy when presented by an algorithmic result contrary to its mission, you will have found a counterexample. it is just that you will be looking for a very long time, because the Iron Law of Institutions is a motherfucker.

This is explicitly unfalsifiable, as the content of the designer's intentions are assumed to be the same as the outcomes, and contrary outcomes that produce changes are categorically assumed to be things the designers didn't care about. It's meaningless. All you've done is load that lack of falsifiability into "core policy" and "mission". Any change is dismissed as a change in the intended design relative to the mission, or as not a core policy.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Oct 11, 2022

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 03:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

A big flaming stink posted:

I'm pretty sure ymb is making a pretty standard argument for The purpose of a system is what it does. The purpose of the Algorithm is to sell suicide kits because that's what it does. It does this because that makes the owners of the system more profit.

Things don't occur happenstance in an algorithm. The people in the driver's seat of the Algorithm have no care for anything except maximizing profit. Thus, the Algorithm is a marvel of design in doing so and no one sweats the details.

This appears to, again, be an explicitly unfalsifiable statement enshrined as a thought-terminating cliche. It only works by not "sweating the details" of distinctions you don't want to recognize. Like, among other counterpoints, this categorically denies the existence of badly made systems.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 03:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

if you interrogate this statement, you will find you have buried an entire world ideological assumptions in the word 'badly.'

No, I haven't. Your framework operates only by obfuscating the distinction between what the designer intends and the outcome of the design by obviating that really massive range of alternate explanations by forcing it backwards into itself. "Badly" can mean that there is a possible distinction between the intended design of something and what it does, rather than any outside view. If a chair is manufactured and breaks under the intended user's weight, was it because the manufacturer designed the chair to break, or because the designer wasn't interested in making the chair bear the weight of the user?

This shifting interest-based motive response is analogous to neorealism- any system outcome is assumed to be in the designer's interest, which can be used to explain away or justify any outcome.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Oct 11, 2022

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 03:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gerund posted:

This contention would be the same if you disagreed with the File Drawer effect on scientific studies. I do not think there is much intelligence in denying the existance of publication biases.

I'm not the one denying the existence of biases. I'm the one denying that the intention of the designer (or, in your example, the biases of the author) are the only thing that determines outcomes. Much as the author doesn't anticipate the demands of reviewer 3, the designer doesn't have the power of god to anticipate and match all outcomes of a system that affect their intended outcomes.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Oct 11, 2022

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 04:03

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

So as you are now demonstrating, the claim is unfalsifiable because any contrary outcome, no matter how obvious, gets loaded into the "true intentions" of the designer.

A big flaming stink posted:

..honestly, this seems a pretty straightforward example of what YMB and I are talking about. Was the chair's designer concerned with a 500 pound person being able to sit in the chair? If they were not, then essentially, it is the case that the chair was designed to break when utilized by a person who weighs 500 pounds.

The word "essentially" as you are using it here continues to reflect that you've constructed a tautological claim. Even Beer at least loaded the statement with "constantly," and didn't intend it to apply everywhere- you're treating the circular nature of the supposed unity of design and outcome as a categorical.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 04:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gerund posted:

The File Drawer effect isn't a study being controlled or dictated by the scientist either, and yet the bias remains. An algorthim is a published product, edited and controlled by the owner. As such, smart people should treat them as products, and not a hollywood Star Trek fantasy of Perfect Computation.

I...okay, I think you may have a few things confused here. First, filedrawer effects refer to both deliberate and non-deliberate actions by both researchers and publishers, and are not produced out of the aether.

Second, I am explicitly not arguing the inverse of the tautology, that algorithms are or can be perfect or some how free of the intention of the designer. There is a range of possible explanations beyond either "all systems do exactly what they are intended to do by the designer" and "All systems could be perfectable in an external moral sense if only we could remove the biases of their designers".

That algorithms or publications are the product of systems does not mean that they wholly reflect the intentions of their designers, absent a tautological application of intention and design, which is the entire problem. Like you have to start completely mainlining Actor Network Theory to get to a place where that makes sense, and even Latour doesn't treat the design as the product of a unified interest- nor does the interrogation of the individual causal elements leading to Latour's truth product stop being relevant because "the system" leading to it can be obliterated into a black box. The algorithm isn't just "a guy", it's something externally created by, often, a whole bunch of guys, and they can do things like miscommunicate in meetings and make typos.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Oct 11, 2022

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 04:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

BlueBlazer posted:

I mean, I think we all have an agreement that the design decisions of the creators are the problem. I agree with all of what Y!MB is saying, even though I think they aren't sensing the sarcasm that's given off on the understanding. Anyone been on the internet pre-Amazon given recommendations or been exposed to traditional retail practices goes duh.

I'm not interested in trying to argue against a tautological argument that's presented that way as sarcasm or a joke or whatever other excuse. Both categoricals of absolute and zero intentionality are "duh," but one of them just took up a page.

BlueBlazer posted:

What does an algorithm do by law though... it cant be indifferent because it has a design motive. That's the crux of it no matter how nobel or simple it is. A decision tree based on the amount something has been seen can be no different than the decision based on the content there in.

Going back to the simplest one I can think of. The top ten list. To automatically show it on a front page could be editorializing, to select it on a link on the front page to view it would be a user choice. Where is the choice made and on what side of the liability does it stand ?

Well, here I'll repeat the language from the petition again as a potential starting point for analysis:

At p. 31:

quote:

The text of section 230 clearly distinguishes between a system that provides to a user information that the user is actually seeking (as does a search engine) and a system utilized by an internet company to direct at a user information (such as a recommendation) that the company wants the user to have. Section 230(b) states that �It is the policy of the United States ... to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the internet and other computer services.� 47 U.S.C. � 230(b) (emphasis added). Congress found that �[t]he developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services ... offers users a greater degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.� 47 U.S.C. � 230(a) (emphasis added). The core function of a search engine advances that policy, because it enables a user to select what information he or she will receive; on the other hand, when an interactive computer service makes a recommendation to a user, it is the service not the user that determines that the user will receive that recommendation.

The crux of this part of the argument is that both in terms of user selection and cases where there is no "seeking," an output that has been subject to some editorial or publishing element- but that the root purpose of Section 230, and the extent of the protection it should afford, is to where the output, however subject to design, is the product of an act of seeking the output. From here, the company is at least forced to explicitly reckon with the outcomes of its actions in the passive receiver context. The petitioner then leans on how the "publisher" is in fact editorializing on these actions at p. 35:

quote:

The decision below insisted it was holding only that recommendations by an interactive computer service are protected by section 230 if those recommendations are made in a �neutral� manner. �We only reiterate that a website�s use of content-neutral algorithms, without more, does not expose it to liability....� [41a]. �[The complaint does not] allege that Google�s algorithms treated ISIS-created content differently than any other third-party created content.� Id. The Second
Circuit majority in Force also stressed that the recommendations there were formulated in a neutral manner. [934 F.3d at 69-70]. But if making recommendations falls within the functions of a �publisher� under section 230, there would be no basis for distinguishing between neutrally formulated and deliberately pro-terrorist recommendations. The core consequence of a claim treating a defendant as a �publisher� of content created by another is that the defendant is protected from liability when it decides whether or not to publish that content. Under the terms of section 230, YouTube would unquestionably be protected if it chose to widely distribute a favorable review of ISIS videos that was taken from a terrorist publication and yet were to refuse to permit the United States Department of Defense to upload an analysis condemning those videos.

That was exactly the problem in Sikhs for Justice, Inc. v. Facebook, [697 Fed.Appx. 526 (9th Cir. 2017)], discussed in Malwarebytes, [141 S.Ct. at 17 (statement of Justice Thomas)]. The plaintiff in that case sought to place on its Facebook page materials strongly critical of the role of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in condoning the 2002 massacre of hundreds of Muslims in riots in Gujarat. Facebook removed that criticism of Prime Minister from the plaintiff �s Facebook page in India, although not elsewhere in the world, an action evidently intended to curry favor with the Indian government. When Sikhs for Justice sought an injunction to restore those materials to its Facebook page, Facebook successfully argued that section 230 gave it an absolute right to censor such anti-terrorist materials.[19] There is no possible textual basis for distinguishing between non-neutral posting policies and non-neutral recommendation algorithms, and no conceivable justification for distinguishing between the murder of Muslims in India and the murder of Nohemi Gonzalez in France.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Oct 11, 2022

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 04:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I suspect that the setup may also allow them to funnel large amounts of the public funding elsewhere.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 19:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

They got a lot of money from SNAP for kids and NYC set up a special program that paid for their busses to school.

But, other than that, they didn't actually get a ton of public money. There were no vouchers or anything.

The article you cited earlier referred to one school getting $4 million over the course of a year for 500 students. That's not necessarily a lot for a properly functioning school, but under these circumstances...

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 20:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Yeah, but it was mostly SNAP money from the 2021 stimulus bill that wasn't really restricted to education. They could have gotten it if they were a day care.

There isn't a voucher system or property tax exemption for sending you kids to a Yeshiva like the other poster was guessing that it was "all about vouchers" and school choice money.

The NYC public school budget is about $40 billion. $4 million (mostly for food) is not really comparable to a real school's public money.

I stand corrected, thanks.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 20:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

DeathSandwich posted:

What's that old saying? - "If you owe someone a thousand dollars you have a problem. If you owe someone a billion dollars they have the problem."

Like, he already has a government Auditor in charge of his company because he hosed around in bankruptcy court, but I'm thinking he's still going to try to make it as difficult as possible for his victims to collect their pound of flesh.

If nothing else, the footage from his reaction may be admissible down the line.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 22:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The victims will definitely see some money relatively quickly, but there is no way to liquidate nearly $1 billion out of him right now.

They'll get a judgement enforced to get a chunk now and then apply for garnishment to slowly recoup the rest as long as Jones still has an income. But, Jones is probably never going to make enough money to fully pay off the judgements and will surely drag it out kicking and screaming. The people who were awarded ~$90 million will likely never fully recoup the judgement.

My impression is that Jones has a significant amount of liquid holdings in the form of the constellation of entities set up around infowars; I don't know that it's $1 billion, but it may be at least several hundred million.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2022 03:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

In the Texas suit, the court estimated his net worth at between $140 and $200 million. I know that the bankruptcy court was getting on him for trying to hide $62 million.

That's what I am basing it on, but I don't know how the court actually calculated that.

I suppose it's possibly as low as that, but for comparison the known "white market" dietary supplement industry in the US is publicly estimated at around 55 billion, and is privately estimated at several times that value- and Jones is by no means a small operator in the field, even if he's not one of the big MLMs.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Oct 13, 2022

# ¿ Oct 13, 2022 05:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

pencilhands posted:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3686293-ocasio-cortez-mocks-fox-news-contributors-28-taco-bell-lunch/amp/

I don�t understand what AOC is getting at here. Is $28 not an average Taco Bell order? I generally end up spending around $20-$30 when I go - it�s not the 90s anymore. Shaming portion sizes just seems kind of gross and counterproductive, if you ask me.

The most expensive combo I can find on the taco bell website right now is still south of 10 dollars.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2022 02:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It's not a full colonoscopy. It's a prostate exam. They do the fingers up the butt thing with me every 1-2 years and have a light and a camera. But, I am now learning (somewhat concerningly) that maybe I also need to talk to my doctor about whether that is necessary or if he is just putting fingers up the butt for nothing as well.

I believe the colorectal exam guideline was pushed back, I think to 45, because the average lifespan was getting long enough that the false positive rate was outweighing benefit. Same with prostate exams, though I don't have numbers- and I think it's been all bloodwork for a while now. All of this is subject to other factors, ofc.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2022 16:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Now I'm concerned that Bonoman's doctor and my doctor are either not keeping up with the updated guidelines or they both just enjoy going on recreational trips to prostate town.

I'm not the person to ask on testing guidelines, I'm working off thirdhand info and places like uspstf. It might be the case that insurer policies are different.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2022 16:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Eric Cantonese posted:

I feel like you have to be wary of anything done by Rolling Stone, but this is a weird story. I wonder what Meek was up to.

https://twitter.com/RollingStone/status/1582707631990493186

This not very well-written story is getting a lot of right-wing spin and reframing to suggest that Meek has been disappeared to a government blacksite- in practice it looks like he's just not talking to anyone except through his attorney (who does not seem to have expressed any concern about his "disappearance").

# ¿ Oct 20, 2022 17:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Stack ranking is very effective�its goals just aren�t performance improvement. Rapidly reducing headcount or laying the groundwork for a firesale or carveup by reducing value is an example of things it�s good for.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2022 22:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Without a judges signature, can Biden ignore the order and claim it's a clerk prank or such

No. Why would you think that is a thing.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2022 04:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Staluigi posted:

Are we ready for masked people with open carry "guarding" specific poll drop off locations because I'm ready for it

It's already happening in AZ, iirc.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2022 22:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Mooseontheloose posted:

Isn't this super unconstitutional?

It's potentially a Logan Act violation, but the act's not reliably been enforced, which makes it difficult to enforce now.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2022 00:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Sounds like a disaster for Twitter staff and society in the long run, but probably not huge changes for the average user right away.

https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1585763155568754688

His...tesla engineers...looking at the code...for twitter. Is that as absurd as it seems?

# ¿ Oct 28, 2022 02:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 06:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Discendo Vox posted:

His...tesla engineers...looking at the code...for twitter. Is that as absurd as it seems?

Upon seeing earlier in the tweet thread, this seems to be a hypothetical statement the tweet author has made up as another way Musk could try to get out of the arrangement, rather than something Musk actually said.

I hate twitter.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2022 02:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Autumn: Well Actually, This IS somethingpedantic.com

«‹›4 »