Gab only succeed because it courted racists, otherwise it would just be yet another forum of no particular note. There was less and less tolerance for their rhetoric and harassment, so Gab saw an opportunity to snap up a community already angry at not being allowed to control everyone around them.
Yeah.. that isn't saying as much as you might think. The CIA, like DARPA, provides seed money to all sorts of unlikely or sketchy projects, only with even less oversight and more 'depends who you know' corruption. CIA money going to them only really means that they have friends in common via the old revolving door.
Going back further, gold as currency was also made up and took a leap of faith.... well, less a 'leap of faith' and more 'government will only accept taxes in gold and will only pay bills in the same'.
The thing that floors me in that story.. I used to work for a company that made touch screen based gaming systems, so something not nearly as important as voting machines.. and we were VERY meticulous about OS and library patches. An OS update like that should not be able to sneak up and have such an effect.
Any time a community or platform talks loudly about 'freedom', they usually have some specific set of speech in mind. In this case, alt-right content is what Gab had in mind. That is the community they courted, that is the safe space they have built for them, that is the "F"reedom they defend, and that is the target audience they bend over backwards to keep happy.
The problem is people do learn from history, just not always the same lessons. Moderation tends to produce better results for most users, but the trolls, spammers, and harassers have been getting increasingly upset and have turned it into a "F"reedom cause.
Ugh. I can recall years back trolls, when they couldn't bug people directly on sites, would actually message people with 'hey, you should come over to XYZ instead and see all the horrible things they are saying about you!' and keep trying to taunt people into visiting forums they controlled. This strikes me as just a somewhat easier to use version of that... which given the company already courts the 'we are so oppressed!' white nationalists community, will probably just be more dumpster fire that they want other people to be able to see.
It faded over time, but when the movie first came out and for a few years after that people were upset, that the movie was pandering to women and only they might enjoy it, that it was going to hurt masculinity, that it was feminism gone too far, etc. The love for the movie built up over the decades since, but late 70s early 80s not so much. This was right at the beginning of the 'culture war' and the 'moral majority' gaining prominence, and putting a woman in a masculine sci-fi action role was pretty unheard of.
It is one of the reasons I can never take this modern outrage seriously.... every time you have a female lead people go 'oh, those old movies everyone loves now did it fine, but THIS time it is pandering because that is the only reason they didn't use a man!'. 40 years of this crap and the argument has stayed pretty much the same.
Well, for starters, I said it wasn't simpler. But secondly, we are not talking about government censorship here, but private platforms deciding what they will and will not carry.
Unless things have improved, their systems are still slower and more expensive than solving the same problem on general digital computers, and probably still slower than using analog computers.
Another example I think back to is when Amazon removed that high profile book on how to groom children. Granted that activity is clearly and explicitly illegal so the case is a bit simpler, but both are an example of freedom of adults to purchase media instructing them on how to harm children, and thus it is not a simple case of 'freedom of adults to do bad things'.
Highly skilled, intelligent psychopaths might not be interested and seek more profitable endeavors, but generally they have no better social skills or talent than the rest of us, thus will take jobs for the same reason anyone does, they want to be able to eat and no better options are immediately available.
I don't see why they would not, or at least not an equivalent. PTSD is the brain reacting to a traumatic event and rewiring itself to add extra aversion to particular stimuli. Pretty much any machine learning system has the potential to screw itself up by overcompensating for a spike in some kind of data and thing not being able to undo the damage because now it is part of the network.
Funny, I recall people being pretty pissy about Aliens featuring a woman at the time. Today people pretend it didn't happen because it is a classic, but yeah... when the series started people were upset that a woman was playing an action/adventure role and that hollywood was 'cramming feminism down our throats'.
Which anyone actually involved in research has access to. Or anyone who bothers going to the library now and then... and most stuff usually ends up getting published online anyway.
True, a lot of cool stuff has happened with machine learning, but I am not sure I would call it 'ground breaking' or really having any breakthroughs. The bulk of machine learning are changes in economics, making demand higher and costs lower. The techniques themselves are incremental refinements on things developed 50 years ago and are quite relatable to anyone working in AI back then 'if we just had more processing power'.
Don't get me wrong, it is awesome stuff (I work in agent based modeling, so ML is something I track), but not the type of leap the op was picturing where a discovery overturns previous understandings.
One would not expect to see ANY significant changes one way or the other. While the FCC has punted on NN, it is still a public policy issue, is showing up in state legislation, and is working its way through various courts. Big ISPs are not going to make major changes, either in terms of building capacity or changing filtering policies until they have an idea of what the next decade or so is going to look like.
Slashdot Mirror
Gab only succeed because it courted racists, otherwise it would just be yet another forum of no particular note. There was less and less tolerance for their rhetoric and harassment, so Gab saw an opportunity to snap up a community already angry at not being allowed to control everyone around them.
No, but only nazis are vocal about the freedom to push nazi rhetoric on whoever they find to harass.
Yeah.. that isn't saying as much as you might think. The CIA, like DARPA, provides seed money to all sorts of unlikely or sketchy projects, only with even less oversight and more 'depends who you know' corruption. CIA money going to them only really means that they have friends in common via the old revolving door.
That is less 'backed' and more 'implemented by'.
Going back further, gold as currency was also made up and took a leap of faith.... well, less a 'leap of faith' and more 'government will only accept taxes in gold and will only pay bills in the same'.
The thing that floors me in that story.. I used to work for a company that made touch screen based gaming systems, so something not nearly as important as voting machines.. and we were VERY meticulous about OS and library patches. An OS update like that should not be able to sneak up and have such an effect.
Any time a community or platform talks loudly about 'freedom', they usually have some specific set of speech in mind. In this case, alt-right content is what Gab had in mind. That is the community they courted, that is the safe space they have built for them, that is the "F"reedom they defend, and that is the target audience they bend over backwards to keep happy.
The problem is people do learn from history, just not always the same lessons. Moderation tends to produce better results for most users, but the trolls, spammers, and harassers have been getting increasingly upset and have turned it into a "F"reedom cause.
Ugh. I can recall years back trolls, when they couldn't bug people directly on sites, would actually message people with 'hey, you should come over to XYZ instead and see all the horrible things they are saying about you!' and keep trying to taunt people into visiting forums they controlled. This strikes me as just a somewhat easier to use version of that... which given the company already courts the 'we are so oppressed!' white nationalists community, will probably just be more dumpster fire that they want other people to be able to see.
Maybe, but more likely all it will show is the differences between the users of the website and the users of Gab.
It faded over time, but when the movie first came out and for a few years after that people were upset, that the movie was pandering to women and only they might enjoy it, that it was going to hurt masculinity, that it was feminism gone too far, etc. The love for the movie built up over the decades since, but late 70s early 80s not so much. This was right at the beginning of the 'culture war' and the 'moral majority' gaining prominence, and putting a woman in a masculine sci-fi action role was pretty unheard of.
It is one of the reasons I can never take this modern outrage seriously.... every time you have a female lead people go 'oh, those old movies everyone loves now did it fine, but THIS time it is pandering because that is the only reason they didn't use a man!'. 40 years of this crap and the argument has stayed pretty much the same.
Well, for starters, I said it wasn't simpler. But secondly, we are not talking about government censorship here, but private platforms deciding what they will and will not carry.
They generate hype and sweet sweet VC dollars?
Unless things have improved, their systems are still slower and more expensive than solving the same problem on general digital computers, and probably still slower than using analog computers.
Which is kind the point of the Gadsden Flag and why people wave it.... people not wanting the state stopping them from treading on others.
Another example I think back to is when Amazon removed that high profile book on how to groom children. Granted that activity is clearly and explicitly illegal so the case is a bit simpler, but both are an example of freedom of adults to purchase media instructing them on how to harm children, and thus it is not a simple case of 'freedom of adults to do bad things'.
Highly skilled, intelligent psychopaths might not be interested and seek more profitable endeavors, but generally they have no better social skills or talent than the rest of us, thus will take jobs for the same reason anyone does, they want to be able to eat and no better options are immediately available.
I don't see why they would not, or at least not an equivalent. PTSD is the brain reacting to a traumatic event and rewiring itself to add extra aversion to particular stimuli. Pretty much any machine learning system has the potential to screw itself up by overcompensating for a spike in some kind of data and thing not being able to undo the damage because now it is part of the network.
People scream 'I demand realism' at the strangest times. Power fantasy for men.. just fine.. power fantasy for women... 'but women are not powerful!'
Funny, I recall people being pretty pissy about Aliens featuring a woman at the time. Today people pretend it didn't happen because it is a classic, but yeah... when the series started people were upset that a woman was playing an action/adventure role and that hollywood was 'cramming feminism down our throats'.
If fans were not interested in a movie, wouldn't they just not comment on it?
Welcome to 'freedom is complicated and often includes mutually exclusive priorities'
Which anyone actually involved in research has access to. Or anyone who bothers going to the library now and then... and most stuff usually ends up getting published online anyway.
Would it? why would a 'probe' be destroyed but a puffy rock would not? No wind, no weather.
True, a lot of cool stuff has happened with machine learning, but I am not sure I would call it 'ground breaking' or really having any breakthroughs. The bulk of machine learning are changes in economics, making demand higher and costs lower. The techniques themselves are incremental refinements on things developed 50 years ago and are quite relatable to anyone working in AI back then 'if we just had more processing power'.
Don't get me wrong, it is awesome stuff (I work in agent based modeling, so ML is something I track), but not the type of leap the op was picturing where a discovery overturns previous understandings.
One would not expect to see ANY significant changes one way or the other. While the FCC has punted on NN, it is still a public policy issue, is showing up in state legislation, and is working its way through various courts. Big ISPs are not going to make major changes, either in terms of building capacity or changing filtering policies until they have an idea of what the next decade or so is going to look like.