As long as Trump's online digital media has to follow the same rules that publishers have to follow - including content liability laws - then I'm all for it.
Also, the quote from the subject is not mine and, from what I can tell, a lot of people have said it so I can't attribute it to a single person.
I wish I had a mod point to give you for the Subject, even though you explicitly mention the lack of attribution. I've been saying the same thing for a while, but more clumsily. Something like the right to say stupid things does not imply any right to make people listen to you. (Part of the entire MEPR thing.)
Which leads to my peculiar solution approach: If so-called world leaders get special rules on their tweets, then every tweet that invokes such a rule should have a flag to that effect. For example: "If
I spent a while trying to find who said it first. I saw Sacha Baron Cohen in the list of people who said it, but I found unnamed sources who said it prior. So, perhaps, officially, the quote could be by "Anonymous". Either way, it wasn't me.
I like your approach. It's simple and effective.
My alternative would be to make the posters of content that reaches a large audience (say >100 people) be the ones held liable should anyone wish to sue them over slander, copyright infringement or any of the other
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your ideas actually fit with my MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) approach. I would like to tune my MEPR-based filters to favor a relatively small group of regular people, especially people that I admire and want to emulate, while still being open to especially interesting comments from other people. The MEPR data should be explicitly accessible with a MEPR link next to the identity's name-or-avatar link.
Meanwhile, the trolls can say anything they like, but m
Yes, karma is a metric of earned public reputation, but it is one-dimensional and lacks symmetry. The moderation system is the flip side, but it's terribly broken. At this point I think Slashdot has pretty much died, but it's coasting on inertia. Mostly that's due to the lack of a good financial model that could support real improvements. (My favorite suggestion there is tagged CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) to fund improvements and ongoing costs on a cost-recovery basis.)
I like where you're going with this. Multidimensional seems to better match the social dynamic that happens IRL.
Only consideration that comes to mind is the risk of creating echo chambers if we are able to so accurately curate the kinds of comments we wish to receive. It's already a problem on the net with less sophisticated algorithms leading to greater and greater division. Hell, it's even a problem with biased news media when we can simply choose the media that gives us a message we know we'll agree
Yeah, I don't like the echo chamber aspect, but I think it would be hard to prevent people from doing that if they really want to.
One thing that would make it difficult is that I think it would be hard to define dimensions that can be used that way. There is too much disagreement about the terms of the box. In particular, there should NOT be any dimension like "believes in Qanon conspiracies", but rather some dimensions that indicate "gullibility". However I think all of the dimensions should be worded as p
If I could change the world, I'd have everyone become experts in critical thinking skills. Being able to spot logical fallacies and cognitive biases.
So, if I may add a suggestion for dimensions for you to consider, it could be along the lines of, being able to recognize logical fallacies or being able to recognize their own cognitive biases. You could even go further, and make it more granular with specific fallacies - being able to recognize 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to emotion', or 'ad hominem', or for bi
Well, you've raised several new aspects. I think a lot of what you wrote would be addressed by improvements in public education, but that's getting kind of out of the scope of MEPR. Rather the public schools in America were supporting your objectives until they were systematically destroyed for various reasons. Real estate speculators merely had the simplest and most obvious reasons for wanting to destroy public education. They just wanted to reduce the nasty property taxes that interfered with their specul
"Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom of Reach" (Score:2)
Also, the quote from the subject is not mine and, from what I can tell, a lot of people have said it so I can't attribute it to a single person.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had a mod point to give you for the Subject, even though you explicitly mention the lack of attribution. I've been saying the same thing for a while, but more clumsily. Something like the right to say stupid things does not imply any right to make people listen to you. (Part of the entire MEPR thing.)
Which leads to my peculiar solution approach: If so-called world leaders get special rules on their tweets, then every tweet that invokes such a rule should have a flag to that effect. For example: "If
Re: (Score:2)
I like your approach. It's simple and effective.
My alternative would be to make the posters of content that reaches a large audience (say >100 people) be the ones held liable should anyone wish to sue them over slander, copyright infringement or any of the other
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your ideas actually fit with my MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) approach. I would like to tune my MEPR-based filters to favor a relatively small group of regular people, especially people that I admire and want to emulate, while still being open to especially interesting comments from other people. The MEPR data should be explicitly accessible with a MEPR link next to the identity's name-or-avatar link.
Meanwhile, the trolls can say anything they like, but m
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps that's what you were alluding to?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, karma is a metric of earned public reputation, but it is one-dimensional and lacks symmetry. The moderation system is the flip side, but it's terribly broken. At this point I think Slashdot has pretty much died, but it's coasting on inertia. Mostly that's due to the lack of a good financial model that could support real improvements. (My favorite suggestion there is tagged CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) to fund improvements and ongoing costs on a cost-recovery basis.)
I think a better discussion system w
Re: (Score:2)
Only consideration that comes to mind is the risk of creating echo chambers if we are able to so accurately curate the kinds of comments we wish to receive. It's already a problem on the net with less sophisticated algorithms leading to greater and greater division. Hell, it's even a problem with biased news media when we can simply choose the media that gives us a message we know we'll agree
Re: (Score:1)
He basically wants the Chinese social credit system put into place. Underneath it is nothing more than gossipy fascism.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-1
The bots attack! (Score:1)
Even from behind!
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-3
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't like the echo chamber aspect, but I think it would be hard to prevent people from doing that if they really want to.
One thing that would make it difficult is that I think it would be hard to define dimensions that can be used that way. There is too much disagreement about the terms of the box. In particular, there should NOT be any dimension like "believes in Qanon conspiracies", but rather some dimensions that indicate "gullibility". However I think all of the dimensions should be worded as p
Re: (Score:1)
Despite all the silly complexities you add on you cannot hide that it is the same as China's social credit system, which is very fascist.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-2
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I may add a suggestion for dimensions for you to consider, it could be along the lines of, being able to recognize logical fallacies or being able to recognize their own cognitive biases. You could even go further, and make it more granular with specific fallacies - being able to recognize 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to emotion', or 'ad hominem', or for bi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've raised several new aspects. I think a lot of what you wrote would be addressed by improvements in public education, but that's getting kind of out of the scope of MEPR. Rather the public schools in America were supporting your objectives until they were systematically destroyed for various reasons. Real estate speculators merely had the simplest and most obvious reasons for wanting to destroy public education. They just wanted to reduce the nasty property taxes that interfered with their specul
Re: (Score:1)
MEPR = Chinese Social Credit System
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-4
Regardless of your fantasy... (Score:1)
Not even directed at you... Your ~MEPR~ is the Chinese Social Credit System. That's what people need to know.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-5
:-) you like to imagine things, huh? (Score:1)
You still can't change the truth
Spread the word!
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-6