I’m for this if it means the algorithm gets destroyed

[removed]

You may have been joking, but this is also the case of Congress and why any technology laws seem to be written by lobbyists for the social media companies (when any actually has moved ahead). I just don't think the companies can have it both ways. There has to be some place where you have freedom of speech and expression and not promote and allow dangerous criminals. They can't have their media used for nefarious and illegal things or to promote terrorism or other violence and have no responsibility for what has happened. There has to be some moderation that can strike a logical, legal balance without clear censorship or the end of the internet.

>they do under 230

I disagree. One of the requirements for 230 is that it isn't your content but the page you serve is content provided by your servers. If your server was just a corridor and just relayed the information, I'd agree (and I think that's the intent of the law) but it created a page. That organization is a form of content.

My take — if the platform isn’t acting as an editor with moderation, then they shouldn’t be held liable.

But they aren't a normal publisher. They aren't the creators of the content. You are asking them to be responsible for millions of people who upload content daily. And no algorithm is going to fix removing all instances of "bad" suggestions. It would require staff from just about every language on earth curating/moderating every single video posted. Because that is the only way to remove videos before they "fall" in the algorithm.

Or remove the algorithm, and search videos by "newest first" or "most watched" etc.

Okay add the caveat if you want (it was a take on the other person’s analogy). You think that somehow complete negates the argument?

That’s why it is a grey area. How responsible should they be. What do they need to do? They will need to address it and answer it.

It is also not the job of lawmakers to make sure YouTube is bearable. That’s the worst way to approach a law. If your business can’t adapt to the laws then it should go out of business. It is weird to argue otherwise. Apply it in any business. The safety and well being should come first before entertainment. At least it should in the non-Roman gladiator days.

It isn't though. There's quite a bit wrong with that image from a surfer's perspective and the judges weren't surfers which is why she talks about the 'perfection' being appealing to the laymen person. A surfer is going to know that the break is weird, or the flow and physics of the whitewash doesn't make sense.

In general, most people who aren't privy to a specific discipline are ignorant of it. My neighborhood fb group is filled with people who couldn't tell the difference between a well post-processed photo and one that's massively clipped in the highlights with maxed out clarity and saturation.

“Write me a book in the style of Leonardo DaVinci. Greg Rutkowski. Not ugly. Anatomically correct hands. Masterpiece. Beautiful woman. Greg Rutkowski. Makoto Shinkai. Anime. Greg Rutkowski. Normal fingers.”

Most are already curated/moderated to the best of their ability/capacity. And, that still isn't enough.

The internet as we know it is mostly click bait. Much like this thread.

And most would just shut down. Sites like YouTube would become unusable without an algorithm -- and curation/moderating costs could skyrocket to the point of no longer being profitable. Millions of minutes of new videos are added to YouTube daily. I assume most of these social media sites are the same.

Just had this convo in the Midjourney sub. Not only is it creating entitled, low-effort individuals, it's also teaching them to use descriptive words and phrases of concepts incorrectly. But they don't care because it yields the output that looks good to them.

I’m hardly a billionaire, but there are already many crude treatments for life extension. Everything from diet, to pharmaceuticals like Metformin, to supplements like NMN. A few hundred bucks a month is all it takes.

As long as you have the option to upvote or 'like' or 'retweet' things, your theory doesn't hold true. The internet is about popular opinion even if it's not right.

One consequence of radical life extension will likely be a radical reorientation of work. So much of what we do economically is based on our limited productive years of life. We basically race from 20 to 65 to save enough to deal with our unproductive 70’s through death. If age related death is off the table, people will likely work much less. Or maybe they work the same amount, but take periodic retirements. I think of raising children — imagine your productive life span isn’t limited. You work for 40 years, but instead of permanent retirement, you take off 15 years while you raise your children.

Lots of possibilities for a much more rewarding life.

Except from my understanding, YouTube/Google didn't expressly "promote" it. The algorithm suggested it. Under that, your analogy doesn't exactly hold up. Unless, you add to the cashier "I see that you've been attending and checking on a few of these meetings -- there's one in the back if you'd like to go check it out."

The problem here is that they're taking a flame thrower to solve the problem, when all they need is a match. And the reaction from the internet will be to simply curtail anything/everything that could get them a lawsuit. Many sites would simply cease to exist because they can't moderate millions of interactions.

And sites like YouTube would become unbearable without an algorithm.

Awwwwww too bad. Now you got to spend those billions of dollars to clean up / monitor the shit show you have created.

Far more bold to assume it won’t be. Every piece of technological advancement in human history has made it to the masses. Doesn’t matter if it’s mechanical, electronic or medicinal. This too will make it to the masses. There’s too much money to be made for it not to, and the technology will, like every piece of technology, become cheaper over time.

Cancer itself is a symptom of aging. Treating aging would be getting at the root cause of so many diseases.

Yeah cause there is/was a rising demand in service that can´t be fed by human workforce anymore. 1st step "AI" with chatbots etc. was integrated maybe 10 years ago, Call Centers have like a script to feed AI´s.. I´m sure in 10 or maybe 15 years we will speak with AI´s instead of CallCenter agents and maybe can´t even tell the difference.

I’m confused. Hasn’t it already been established that pages that host information are not responsible for the content unless an issue is brought to their attention. Like flagging copyright infringement. I guess Google’s algorithm is responsible for promoting it but they didn’t put the content there.

It can give you the body you had at 60 presuming you made it to 80.

A four hour old Google article. Just tell me now, have they already killed it?

No it promoted the content. To use your analogy if someone walked into Walgreens and the cashier said hey there is a meeting in the back you should attend (but doesn’t know what the meeting is about). And the person goes back and a bunch of Nazi are trying to convince people to kill Jews and the person organizes with others and does it. It’s a grey area because it has to be determined if Walgreens is at fault for pointing the guy to a group it didn’t know anything about.

And it matters because hate groups have trouble recruiting people in public places but not the internet. The rise of this problem is definitely be use of the internet. And the ability to organize is also made much easier because of the internet. So the question becomes do you allow more freedom at the cost of more death. You may think freedom should always be the case, but their are plenty of times freedom is restricted. From things like nuclear weapons to not allowing people to bring weapons into certain places. The reason to not allow such things is often how people will use them or potential to use them. Again it is not a black and white area.