I've done some work on neural networks and adaptive algorithms and the fact that these companies are developing these tools to use against people is basically like letting them develop nuclear weapons in their basement

I'm at the point where I think that all of big tech needs to be forcibly dismantled.

It would kind of suck losing the big social media sites like youtube and such, but it sucks harder to have them running roughshod over free speech and all.

Oh I think the consumer needs to kick them to the curb

I'm not fond of the idea of "these companies are super fucked and have tons of power, let's let the government have dominion over their services"

Twitter and Facebook have never been good. YouTube needs to be replaced by a service with better user funding

Me neither, but at least monopoly busting is a power that the government legitimately has, unlike this internet bill of rights stuff I've seen people talking about.

What are they genuinely going to do to monopoly bust in this case? Force people to use another service? Like even if you fragment some of these companies by service the consumer is still fucked

What people are ultimately talking about is the government having control over private business on the basis that the service that business provides is too popular, not because Google bought out all the search engine mines and not because there's no way to set up another search engine due to Google's fuckery

I do like the idea of other competitors being a legitimate alternative to the current major social platforms. The case has been made that no matter who is allowing us to be platformed, our private information will always be sold/used against us, but I don't think a rising competitor would make the same mistakes YT, FB, and Twitter have made

Protecting the confidentiality and rights of content creators/users isn't just a virtuous goal, the confidence of shareholders, stakeholders, and the public is very important for self-interest as well

https://youtu.be/6YgkIxjYCuI

I'm trying to find this. According a some source at the #himtoo and counter protest. A speaker encouraged men/women to record there sexual encounters so they have proof.....maybe then upload to pornhub so we got like a archive....

20 minutes, almost exactly, on liberals screaming about the senate and how unfair it is

they screaming muh democracy

correction:

muh DIRECT democracy

Central premise of the 'Internet' Bill of Rights needs to be that companies don't have a right to capture infinite amounts of data about users and store that for all time. Users need to pretty much have total control over what info is available to use and be able to force companies to comply with reasonable requests to stop spying.

Problem is the info can't only be with the end-user

Internet Bill of Rights is meme legislation, and is a lot broader than you're making it out to be

That's basically driving a stake into the heart of Google/Facebook, if someone can strongly articulate a sensible and thorough message to that effect

I'm not talking about a specific proposal Beeman, if you're referencing something floating out there. Just musing on what I would expect to see from such a thing

ah, alright

tbh you cant really have control over that information though, particularly when it's info you volunteer. At best you can guarantee transparency

By default, they're capturing an inordinate amount of data whether or not they're being malicious

You could probably enforce some kind of anonymization of data with a cryptographic key that's only known when the user accesses it, and then thrown away

Presumably Google might not even be able to access their own stored data on a user

Someone needs to put an axe into the internet bill of rights before someone gets it passed and the next Democrat Congress can use it against us

Which of course is assuming whatever anonymization is used is *effective*, but that's a different story. Anything that happens with the big tech companies needs to be done with transparency so that third parties can authenticate what they're doing is on the up-and-up -- One of the bigger problems as it is already is that basically even when FB/Google/Twitter get called in front of Congress

what are you trying to anonymize?

They just lie.

There's no reason to trust anything they say about their methodologies or implementations of anything because they've proven they're totally untrustworthy

It doesn't help that they coordinate together on things. They probably have access to each other's shit whenever they want to do one another favors

And in some instances they're owned by one conglomerate

@Beeman As much as possible? I remember when people used to get angry at people being able to look up your library records because knowing what books you checked out from the library is an unconstitutional search & invasion of privacy

Now consider that your phone is literally recording your speech passively, sending that off to Google, it's recording your location, it knows everywhere you go even if you turn off location tracking. They probably have all your emails. They have all your search history for decades. Any one of these is creepy as hell and way beyond anything you'd ever see in 1984. They've got it all.

there's an easy solution to not letting Google know your search history (which they then turn around and use for ordering search results, as well as for ads and other purposes)
It's called "use another search engine". Most of the rest of the stuff you could "anonymize" is volunteered by the user

and could jsut be collected from multiple sources automatically

Not only that wail, but Alexa is being used to testify to a murder

It recorded the incident at the time of the murder

Which is screwed up on more levels than just invasion of privacy