Kow wrote:

You tube do pretty well at filtering out porn, despite the fact that people are almost definitely trying to upload it constantly. Can't be too hard to apply their filters to other subjects.

An computer can recognise a flange, it struggles with semantic understanding of a video overstepping a non-defined ethical line on a current affairs topic.

Same thing with jihadi stuff. Only way to remove that automatically is very racistly.

zzzzzz

monkey wrote:

Kow wrote:

You tube do pretty well at filtering out porn, despite the fact that people are almost definitely trying to upload it constantly. Can't be too hard to apply their filters to other subjects.

An computer can recognise a flange, it struggles with semantic understanding of a video overstepping a non-defined ethical line on a current affairs topic.

I'd imagine they filter out a lot of other stuff too. If they made an effort they could easily clamp down on fake bullshit. Anyway, they don't have to ban it, just not promote it. If you have an algorithm to promote it then it can't be too hard to get it to do the opposite.

Kow wrote:

monkey wrote:

Kow wrote:

You tube do pretty well at filtering out porn, despite the fact that people are almost definitely trying to upload it constantly. Can't be too hard to apply their filters to other subjects.

An computer can recognise a flange, it struggles with semantic understanding of a video overstepping a non-defined ethical line on a current affairs topic.

I'd imagine they filter out a lot of other stuff too. If they made an effort they could easily clamp down on fake bullshit. Anyway, they don't have to ban it, just not promote it. If you have an algorithm to promote it then it can't be too hard to get it to do the opposite.

I’m sure it can be done, even manually. They need 18,000 hours of video checked per hour. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why that can’t be some micropayment thing that they can outsource. The thing for me is what they’re supposed to be checking for. The Guardian is outraged about some conspiracy vid, others won’t be.

I’d just go for trusted outlets (whatever that means) getting some special logo on their vids that means it isn’t all just made up. If it’s not on there, assume it’s not going to be factual. That’s not perfect either though.

monkey wrote:

I’d just go for trusted outlets (whatever that means) getting some special logo on their vids that means it isn’t all just made up. If it’s not on there, assume it’s not going to be factual. That’s not perfect either though.

Especially for the conspiracy nuts.

If porn is too offensive to put up then surely putting up videos calling grieving family members liars and pissing on them the day after horrible murders must be pretty high up the offensive scale too. Free speech and all that but helping disseminate views that are leading us all down the global toilet just isn't on.

Facebook announced a thing today (or was it earlier this week? I dunno) but it sounds crap. Beside every sponsored post will be a button you can click to learn who posted and who sponsored it.

I mean, my first thought is that the usernames associated with posting and/or sponsoring a post could be fuckin’ anything. I could set up an account called OFFICIAL BBC NEWS HONEST GUV and use it to promote home-made videos about radicalised cheesemongers.

There have always been lies and exaggerations but things have clearly shifted now owing to the growth of hyper-partisan media outlets.

Yossarian wrote:

There have always been lies and exaggerations but things have clearly shifted now owing to the growth of hyper-partisan media outlets.

Every media outlet is partisan though, usually towards power, wealth, big business, their advertisers and the government.

Seems like not much has changed, except for media organisations getting pissed off at their falling profits and influence and politicians being worried that they no longer have control over the public's access to information (via a supine, deferential media).

There’s partisan views of facts and then there are places which reject facts in order to push their own partisan agendas. ‘Pizzagate’ would never have gained any traction in the public consciousness 20 years ago, now we all know what it refers to and someone started shooting up a pizza restaurant because of it.

Well, yeah. What’s really happening here, in recent times, is that we’re seeing clearly how numb and stupid 80% of people can really be. And then telling those dullards how important it is to vote and make their opinions heard.

Maybe.

I reckon many of those people are just utterly dispirited as to how little their vote has actually changed things in the past - hence the misguided efforts of the Americans to vote for a 'non-establishment' candidate (quite how long-term millionaire and all round powerful businessman Donald Trump qualifies as 'non-establishment' has never been adequately explained).

It's weird that the number-1 voice behind the fake news concept is Donald Trump, a man who's grasp on reality is tenuous at best, and who was voted for by large numbers of people who were fully brainwashed via Fox News' exaggerations and spin plus years of drivel from various other crazy right-wing propaganda merchants.

The rumours during the presidential bid was that he was only doing it in order to garner publicity for setting up a media company.

And yes, he really is that stupid.

To be fair, if I did that I wouldn’t know how to organise the ‘bailing out’ part afterwards.

Yossarian wrote:

There’s partisan views of facts and then there are places which reject facts in order to push their own partisan agendas. ‘Pizzagate’ would never have gained any traction in the public consciousness 20 years ago, now we all know what it refers to and someone started shooting up a pizza restaurant because of it.

I could Google it but I have no idea what Pizzagate is. Not trying to be awkward, just saying it for balance.

I don't have a smart phone so the internet doesn't really come to me, makes life a lot less depressing. That and Peppa Pig.