
Web needs rethink to stop “nasty” ideas spreading, says Tim Berners-Lee - eplanit
https://www.yahoo.com/news/needs-rethink-stop-nasty-ideas-spreading-says-creator-112424774--finance.html
======
joshumax
So, the web was created to freely distribute unhindered by geographic position
or social class...

But apparently people are using it to do _bad stuff_

Better censor it, that can't go wrong /s

------
csense
Censorship isn't something I'm in favor of, but I think the idea Berners-Lee
has is something different. Any given content has "viral coefficients" that
determine how fast it replicates and how likely it is to die out before
penetrating.

His idea's to make a social network where toxic content's has lower viral
coefficients. Censorship is certainly one path to this goal -- simply kill any
objectionable content before it has a chance to spread.

How else could you make a piece of content less likely to spread? Display it
less prominently. Warn people that it spreads negativity and they shouldn't
propagate it. Automatically identify filter bubbles and occasionally include
content with an opposing viewpoint.

The real problem is some/all of these measures may cost you users. How do you
lower the viral coefficient of toxic information in your social network
without lowering the viral coefficient of your social network itself?

~~~
dahdum
Who gets to define what thought is "toxic" and what is not? I don't see how
you can define it algorithmically.

~~~
csense
Defining it's tricky, and it is hard to see how to do it algorithmically. But
that doesn't mean it's impossible.

I think Reddit does something interesting with upvote / downvote ratios, I
don't remember the specifics.

It might also be the case that toxic content spreads differently, or there's
some other measurable way to separate it. Data and experiments to measure user
behavior will probably be needed to develop an algorithm.

------
damiencarol
Yeah! We need something to stop all those 'crimethinking' things...

~~~
kesselvon
Paradoxically, if you want to defend freedom of speech, you can't allow
ideologies that are anti-free speech to spread "e.g. the new resurgence in
authoritarianism and fascism"

~~~
mythrwy
Sure you can. In fact, you must. As long (and this is very important) as it
remains speech.

~~~
vkou
At what point did fascism in Italy and Germany turn from speech to action?

At what point would you have been OK with suppressing fascist speech? (A lot
of people answer "September 1st, 1939" to that question.)

At what point was it too late to stop? ("September 1st, 1939" was years too
late.)

What makes you sure that it doesn't cross that point, before you have the
moral consensus to suppress it?

We've been down this road once before. The last time around, it killed fifty
million people. In politics, the line between speech and action is far murkier
then these absolutes.

~~~
BuuQu9hu
The line between speech (ideas) and action is perfectly clear. Don't pretend
it isn't.

~~~
vkou
So, I ask you - at what point fascism in Europe could have been stopped? At
what point did fascist speech, rallies, and demonstrations turn into action?

Was it after they seized power? They were so appreciative of free speech, that
they immediately repressed it.

~~~
mythrwy
Fascism in Europe could have been stopped in the 16-1800's when Britain and
France gobbled up the world as colonies. They could have left a piece for
Germany and Italy to occupy as these societies unified some years later. Or
they could have not colonized at all.

Alternatively maybe it could have been stopped by preventing the industrial
revolution. Or by preventing Germany and Italy from uniting as countries at
the end of the 1800's/early 1900's. Or by preventing banking interests from
lending to industrialists. Or by preventing the Viking invasions. Or
preventing the collapse of international papal authority. Or by preventing the
rise of papal authority in the first place. Or giving the Chinese first dibs
on East Asia. Or giving native Africans gunpowder. Or by any number of other
means.

Point being, you seem to think 1)Fascism in Europe during the second world war
is the worst event to happen to mankind ever and attempting to prevent it re-
occurring justifies any means, even those with potentially worse outcomes. And
2)Fascism arose strictly because some guys popped in out of nowhere and
started talking.

What about Pol Pot? What about Stalin? What about the church during the Middle
Ages? What about the conquests of Islam? What about the massacres in Medieval
China? Events very simply don't happen in a vacuum, (in spite of the popular
culture/ public school view of history).

The dangers of those who want to prevent free speech because it offends
someone far outweigh the dangers of letting the marketplace of ideas decide
which ideas are worth considering. I don't find the rise of the alt-right
(which I don't support btw) nearly as alarming as I find the number of young
people who think offensive speech should be legislated against or banned.
Which is truly an authoritarian and disturbing trend.

------
mythrwy
Websites don't spread nasty ideas. People spread nasty ideas.

When nasty websites are outlawed only outlaws will have nasty websites.

And you can take my HTTP server when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

------
sametmax
So after drm, what, censorship ?

------
tutufan
Also, the phone system!

