I would actually like to hear more from you, and anyone from these types of governments that do not allow mainstream media platforms you mention to give their opinion. I just recently stumbled into a deep realization of the depths in which censorship actually resides in my country; while promoting their own narrative. While I do agree with a good chunk of what “they” tell us they are protecting us from, such as illicit or obscene images of children, women, or individuals, or flat out live stream murders, I do agree that these same governments will use these tremendously terrible circumstances as a way to steal more data (whether its directly intentional from one single person or not) which is then harmful moving forward.
@kvic I am interested in where you live. Personally, I am from the USA and I would want to move to where you are. If your government is proper, I want in, please. I am also looking forward to reading your conclusion.
It should be noted that I am torn personally between how the content on the IC should be handled. I am from an area of the US that (without going into detail) has made me a question or re-visit a deep philosophical debate over “the line” we draw with things such as content moderation tools. No one should have there, or their family’s murder live streamed while shopping, yet those in oppressive countries wishing to vocalize and demonstrate civic liberties (as we do in areas that are so privileged and self-entitled to do so daily without much repercussion) should be able to find the ability or voice to do what we already clearly have in some way.
Please note* that I use the term “we” as a way to establish a divide because there is a clear divide between those who have the ability to speak their opinions on governmental affairs or politics, and those who would or may be punished by laws that prohibit it. So, there is an us and them in this situation and the “us” in this situation may have become so accustomed to our own freedoms that “we” should refrain from speaking on behalf of the communities to prevent further marginalizing them.
At the same time, I want to prevent neo nazi fascists from live-streaming murders in any area, which seems to only be able to be done through overall content moderation tools (from my very simple and basic understanding). Therfore, my line is confusing and I have been waiting for such a debate to be held and then for leadership from Dfinitny to give their deliberation on this exact issue of “content on the WEB3”. I personally am looking forward to experts speaking on censorship and user sovereignty
We have a passport system for travelers on a world stage that should hold and protect your personal information, who should only release your personal information if the court finds the owner has been illicit and should be held accountable.
An IC neuron could hold a Passport Number in a private field that links the neuron owner to their personal information and the IC and any other identity or person does not have the ability to access your personal information.
Users on the Internet should be able to directly state an issue from the page on their device they are using of any illicit behavior.
The Global community should be able to reject content that they feel is not appropriate, they feel was asking for personal details or bank and card details to illicit money. If that content gets enough rejects then action should be taken on the communities behalf.
There are many levels we can take action for a neuron owner on the nns and votes would only be accepted by neuron holders that have the proven passport id.
We have our own internet exploria on the ic where nns neuron owners can vote on how to create and have these built in securities features. That by rejecting content that can only be uploaded from the ic internet explorer will contain the neuron ID for any and all content the owner places on the Web, that we can vote for the scale and actions we can take on the owner of these neurons that exceed certain percentages voted ranges.
As a final note the Passport ID can be released by IC on the direction of the International Criminal Court which should take in consideration the many concerns of human treatment. The main purpose is to discourage illicit behavior as their personal details could be given for prosecution from the passport id.
By using the World Government System, we as neuron holders do not have to be involved and they will have to perfect this system that they have already in place as it should be.
This link shows a possible data breach from a web2 company and the actions and reassurance of the Government to keep your personal data safe.
The International Criminal court is biased by design. In particular they would easily prosecute third world leaders compared to first world citizens. From an African perspective it is seen as a neocolonial tool meant to undermine African sovereignty . // https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022002719893740
Solution; Code is the Law; it is a matter of time before we see codifying of the law which can be executed through smart contracts. Governments would have to follow that code as it would be formulated by citizens of the world.
It is hard to have a discussion about censorship without a product being censored. Talking about web 2 platforms in web 3 forums does not paint a clear picture about what is going on in the world. A better approach would be to specify what is being censored and at what geo location. If it murder, the solution is to design a safety net that would detect and red flag such horrific acts at web speed (as soon as they are posted), and that would later be removed from the platform only by approved personnels.
Now would it be considered censorship if those flagged videos are held in a state of “non-posting status” until the team (approved personnel) is able to determine if it is murder or flagged by a glitch in the system? To prevent them from being re-downloaded and spread despite removal or being flagged? People are quicker than assigned personnel (unfortunately) and then it can still spread and reach a faction of violent individuals wishing to cause catastrophic damage. Or on the other hand, are these designs competent enough to determine whether someone is posting/ publishing a “Horror Film” rather than a single individual or group just posting murder(s) and or various horrendous acts of violence? I would hate for artists and various film producers to be flagged or categorized as the other sub-set I speak of. Please forgive me for my lack of technical skills, this may be something the community is well-versed in whereas I am obviously not.
I beg to differ, No human is quicker than a computer. Classic example is when DEEP BLUE won over world class champion Garry Kasparov in 1997. What I am referring to is that, systems are superior in making decisions given the right programing. In this case, cooperation of the system or product of social interaction with personhood would make content modulation effortless. I been a victim of content moderation but it came with advise of citing whatever I post. There has to be law, (law creates order) and as far as there is hierarchy in the system on how to solve uncertainty then everything would be a success.
If the worry is that someone would spread a video that was taken down then that is not worry at all. The system would make the right decision with a success rate of high probability. If an error occurs, that error only benefits the system as engineers can work around that to make sure it does not occur again. We have to come into the conclusion that this “is a marathon and not a sprint”. ERRORS MADE ARE RESOURCES FOR SYTEM TO BE TRAINED ON. The rule of large numbers further supports the notion, that it would take time for perfection to come to reality, so the realistic thing is to expect outlier events that would challenge the system.
In talking about horror movies, that is a piece of cake as the model of the product would be trained to detect what is what. https://mindy-support.com/news-post/using-ai-to-fight-crime-how-police-use-ai/
And there can be channels opened for artists to file a claim if their content is being attacked by the system of the product. All in all, it boils down to the amount of resources allocated for such a system to work.
So we do agree that the majority will decided the levels that code will remove elicit content and the bias in most systems will need to be made to conform to expected level of decency but how about who we allow to put up content which is the problem as they need to be removed from and stopped polluting with what they think is acceptable and what about the passport id to also know who we need to prosecute or maybe help as we don’t know their experience’s
Stop the person or group by rejecting their neuron id’s can become very costing also for them if we apply costs.
No the majority do not decide. The rule of law decides!
Just relying on Simple Majority = Anarchy
Just relying on Controlled Majority = Democracy
There has to be a system that can make decisions, and everyone who participates in it adheres to those laws that are embedded in that system.
I like quoting the Bible because it was a book to reference morality in the environment I was raised (Africa), and also most of the lessons in the Bible are similar to the Qua-ran and other religions books. I bring that up to make a point about the parable of the lost sheep. For those unaware of the lessons of the parable of the lost sheep, In summary it talks about a shepherd who left his 99 sheep to find 1 that is lost. This to me reflects our modern day activities ( or politics) that majority is not always right, what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. To put it in perspective in the current discussion, defining clear goals and laws is better than trying to rely on the majority. I am for decentralization but you just do not get there. There is a process. That is what nature does. And nature is law. So is mathematics, the language of the universe.
When I was first censored online, I took it upon myself to research the difference between emotional and practical logic. It took time for the difference to internalize but finally i was able to master the concepts. How emotions affect logical reasoning: evidence from experiments with mood-manipulated participants, spider phobics, and people with exam anxiety - PMC
In designing my programs they have to align with mathematics and existing laws. An example is to prevent sybil attack, 2/3 of the network has to be operational. That is something you can prove with math.
Going back to censorship, it is only right if it can b proved by math and not feelings; by cause and effect. This can be done by training neural networks on decision making. That is all I can say as of now.
I agree. Regardless of whether we agree on specific topics, no one@Tbd (not even me) should try to do so. @kvic has every right to post and speak their mind. I encourage you to continue doing so.
@JxBrian What I meant by “faster than approved personnel” was that, say the videos were not held in a query of sorts until a team could determine, and they just uploaded everything, and the team then had to remove it. That is what I was referring to as an example scenario. I was not implying that it was correct or what would happen. Please reread this section, as I am new to the industry, and am by no means trying to imply or insinuate that I do know, because I don’t. I am coming at this particular conversation from the lens of a “student” looking to learn or hear from more experienced users and developers on these issues. If my language was misleading or confusing, I apologize and will try to adjust.