For the first time in human history, we can accurately measure many of these factors. All of these are available, and companies are constantly reviewing, What are the consequences of our policies? Each time they make a law they test the results and achieve what they can. The problem is, of course, everything is closed. No one has it, except the people of Silicon Valley. The reason is so much fun and so frustrating.
This connects perhaps the most interesting thing for me in your paper, which is the idea of possible thinking. Many articles and discussions on social media are only focused on anecdotes, as people do. Like, “These things, Facebook said it wasn’t allowed, but it was viewed 20,000 times.” The point you make on this paper is that, being a little careful about things is impossible unless you just ban everything, which no one wants. You have to accept that there will be mistakes. And every choice is where you want the mistakes to go: Do you want some false or some bad lies?
The problem is that if Facebook comes out and says, “Oh, I know it looks bad, but really, we’ve removed 90% of the bad stuff,” it doesn’t satisfy anyone, and I think one reason is that we’ve just got these companies’ words.
Completely. We have no idea at all. We are left with the sympathy of this kind of word on the blog page.
But there is a seed of truth. Like, Mark Zuckerberg has a line that regularly publishes now in evidence and any discussion in DRM. It’s like, the police don’t solve all the cases, you can’t have an innocent city, you can’t expect to be forced. And there is a grain of truth in it. The idea that a sufficient amount of time will bring stability to all the problems of human imagination and dreams, and there is something frustrating, impossible, and useless about the stories we read in the newspaper about, Here is an example of one mistake, or container of mistakes,
Because the only way we can make sure that the rules are properly obeyed is to just ban everything that seems from a distance like something else. And then we can have onions knocked down because they look like loops, or whatever it is. Some people may not be concerned about the freedom to speak onion, but there are other extreme examples.
No, like the person who watches so many cooking movies—
It would be expensive to pay, wouldn’t it?
I look at more pictures of onions than breasts on the internet, which really hits me hard.
Yes, that’s exactly why the caucus-free speech is strong.
I’m in it.
We have to admit mistakes in some way. So the example I use in my paper is about the epidemic. I think this is very helpful, because it makes it clearer. At the beginning of the epidemic, towers had to send their staff home like everyone else, and this meant that they had to do so. they reduce their machine dependence. They didn’t have a lot of people researching. And for the first time, he did not explicitly state what was going on, meaning, “We will make a lot of mistakes.” Most of the time, they come out and say, “Our machines, they’re so good, and the magicians, they clean it all up.” And for the first time he was like, “By the way, we’re going to make a lot of mistakes about the plague.” But the plague gave them the opportunity to say, because everyone was like, “Well, wrong! We have to get rid of these things.”
In the same way, we admitted the mistakes. We read in the newspapers how, for example, when masks were bad, and were banned from advertising the mask, their machines accidentally promoted this and brought down a group of volunteer manufacturers, because the machines were like, “Bad masks; give. “And it’s like,” Well, it’s not good, but at the same time, what decision do you want them to make then? ” Virtually, where there are billions of choices, there is always a payoff, and we just doubt the advertising, and I think it’s a very good business.