When robots take over they’re gonna be sexist. Because we made them that way.
the singularity will be machines learning to treat ppl with respect and tech bros trying to shut down the internet
On June 20, the EU’s legislative committee will vote on the new Copyright directive, and decide whether it will including the controversial “Article 13” (automated censorship of anything an algorithm identifies as a copyright violation) and “Article 11” (no linking to news stories without paid permission from the site).
These proposals will make starting new internet companies effectively impossible – Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and the other US giants will be able to negotiate favourable rates and build out the infrastructure to comply with these proposals, but no one else will. The EU’s regional tech success stories – say Seznam.cz, a successful Czech search competitor to Google – don’t have $60-100,000,000 lying around to build out their filters, and lack the leverage to extract favorable linking licenses from news sites.
If Articles 11 and 13 pass, American companies will be in charge of Europe’s conversations, deciding which photos and tweets and videos can be seen by the public, and who may speak.
The MEP Julia Reda has written up the state of play on the vote, and it’s very bad. Both left- and right-wing parties have backed this proposal, including (incredibly) the French Front National, whose Youtube channel was just deleted by a copyright filter of the sort they’re about to vote to universalise.
So far, the focus in the debate has been on the intended consequences of the proposals: the idea that a certain amount of free expression and competition must be sacrificed to enable rightsholders to force Google and Facebook to share their profits.
But the unintended – and utterly foreseeable – consequences are even more important. Article 11’s link tax allows news sites to decide who gets to link to them, meaning that they can exclude their critics. With election cycles dominated by hoaxes and fake news, the right of a news publisher to decide who gets to criticise it is carte blanche to lie and spin.
Article 13’s copyright filters are even more vulnerable to attack: the proposals contain no penalties for false claims of copyright ownership, but they do mandate that the filters must accept copyright claims in bulk, allowing rightsholders to upload millions of works at once in order to claim their copyright and prevent anyone from posting them.
That opens the doors to all kinds of attacks. The obvious one is that trolls might sow mischief by uploading millions of works they don’t hold the copyright to, in order to prevent others from quoting them: the works of Shakespeare, say, or everything ever posted to Wikipedia, or my novels, or your family photos.
More insidious is the possibility of targeted strikes during crisis: stock-market manipulators could use bots to claim copyright over news about a company, suppressing its sharing on social media; political actors could suppress key articles during referendums or elections; corrupt governments could use arms-length trolls to falsely claim ownership of footage of human rights abuses.
It’s asymmetric warfare: falsely claiming a copyright will be easy (because the rightsholders who want this system will not tolerate jumping through hoops to make their claims) and instant (because rightsholders won’t tolerate delays when their new releases are being shared online at their moment of peak popularity). Removing a false claim of copyright will require that a human at an internet giant looks at it, sleuths out the truth of the ownership of the work, and adjusts the database – for millions of works at once. Bots will be able to pollute the copyright databases much faster than humans could possibly clear it.
I spoke with Wired UK’s KG Orphanides about this, and their excellent article on the proposal is the best explanation I’ve seen of the uses of these copyright filters to create unstoppable disinformation campaigns.
This is how the system of white supremacy operates. The media is used 2 create stereotypes like blk on blk crime.They need black men to fill jail cells for the Prison Indstrial complex
You know what? I’m tired of this.
I do not know what exactly they are waiting for. I mean our government comes up with “reasons” to invade other countries, such as Syria, like their government is allegedly violating human rights or something like that. but… I mean for other countries, they do not even have to go deep to bomb the fuck out of this place, they can just look at our media. And this has been happening to people of color since the media has existed.
I’ll never forget this 👇🏾
Did a research project on this in undergrad and the results are extremely alarming because it’s not just in imagery, it’s in language used even in the law making process and within our own communities in a completely different way than expected.
Everyone hates Content ID, Google’s $60,000,000 copyright filter for YouTube that tries to stop users from uploading copyrighted videos.
Big rightsholders say that it still lets crucial materials slip through the cracks. Indie rightsholders say that it lets big corporations falsely claim copyright over their works and take them down. Google hates Content ID because they spent $60,000,000 developing a system that makes everyone miserable, and YouTubers and their viewers hate it because it overblocks so much legit content.
But all of this has escaped the EU’s notice. Under Article 13 (which will be voted up or down in a key committee on June 20), every EU platform will be obliged to filter everything users post – not just videos, but stills, audio, code, games, text, everything.
No filter exists that can even approximate this, and the closest equivalents are mostly run by American companies, meaning that US Big Tech is going to get to spy on everything Europeans post and decide what gets censored and what doesn’t.
In my new op-ed for Motherboard, Europe’s New Copyright Rules Are Like YouTube’s Content ID System—for the Entire Internet, I talk about what this means for Europe’s internet and what you can do about it (tldr: contact your MEP, straightaway!).
“Pennsylvania is considering the implementation of a computer program designed to predict future criminality, thereby determining what type of sentence a judge should impose. But talented attorneys like veteran trial lawyer Troy H. Wilson are not having any of that.”
got an email from one my client who is Github private repo business customer. They want to move out of Github to a personal GIT server hosted either in AWS or Google Cloud. They fear that Microsoft might get insight into their codebase. Small startups/business do not trust MS. Why? Because Microsoft is going to acquire Github. If you host open source code move away from Github today. Do not use it. Microsoft has a history of stealing users code.
Gitlab is a good alternative and you can also self host.
Anyway, since the time I made this comment I’ve got my own gitlab server up and running, you can see that here: http://git.wizdev.co (although there’s not much to see). You can figure out how to set it up for yourself here: https://about.gitlab.com/installation/.
The New York Times now reports that Facebook has given at least four Chinese companies access to user data, and that one of these firms was flagged by U.S. intelligence as a security threat.
Huawei is a Chinese telecom firm identified by America’s intel services as a national security threat to the United States of America. If this thoroughly reported and credible story is to be believed, Facebook gave them your data, knowing Huawei were the bad guys.
Use Facebook at your own peril.