> For the most part, sexy never left, and statistics bear this out
Recently I've seen a figure in a reputable source showing that people tend to have less sex than ~20-30 years ago (even if we just look at married couples).
Especially bad amongst male youth. The refusal to acknowledge this epidemic will have extreme consequences going forward. The normalization of incel talking points online is the canary in the coal mine. The average young male in America today is “red pilled”.
Long story short, this "research" and data access wouldn't be allowed under the DSA, because (i) the researcher didn't provide any data protection safeguards, (ii) his university (and their data protection officer) didn't assume legal liability for his research, (iii) his research isn't focused on systemic risks to society.
Platforms (reasonably!) do not trust random academic researchers to be safe custodians of user data. The area of research focus and assumption of liability do not matter. Once a researcher's copy of data is leaked, the damage is done.
Yup, when the data breach happens the headlines aren't going to be "Random well meaning researchers caught in data breach exposing user data". They're going to be: "5 million Facebook logins hacked in massive data breach", and you'd be hard pressed to find actual information on how the leak happened, just like the gmail story from a few days ago.
No researcher will request or get access to "5 million Facebook logins" through the DSA, since such a request wouldn't comply with the DSA requirements, so your point is moot. In fact, we live in a quite different world than you imagine. Currently, researchers don't even have access to the public data, as the article points out. When it comes to private data, researchers won't get access to private messages either, but rather to aggregate-level privacy-preserving data (assuming that the DSA isn't killed before any of this happens by the industry and Republicans, which you seem to advocate for).
This "research" and data access wouldn't be allowed under the DSA, because (i) the researcher didn't provide any data protection safeguards, (ii) his university (and data protection officer) didn't assume legal liability for his research, (iii) his research isn't focused on systemic risks to society.
The article for this post is about the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA). Since the original comment argues against research access to data by arguing that "Cambridge Analytica was research as well," another poster chimed in to rebut that assertion by arguing that Aleksandr Kogan's research would not have been allowed access to user data under the DSA and thus, that specific legal concern is moot.
kogan "research" harvested data through application and he was outside of eu.
so even it was happening today, whatever he did is irrelevant to EU/DSA unless they plan to chase everybody across the globe. somewhat like ofcom going after 4chan
That's precisely what the EU is doing with Clearview AI [0].
> Max Schrems: “We even run cross-border criminal procedures for stolen bikes, so we hope that the public prosecutor also takes action when the personal data of billions of people was stolen – as has been confirmed by multiple authorities.”
Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?
Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?
I can't stand this "influencing elections" nonsense. It's a term meant to mislead with connotations of manipulating the voting tabulation when what is actually going on is influencing people to vote the way you want them to, which is perfectly legal and must always be legal in a functioning democracy.
Won the election here means 22.94% of the vote, not long after having polled at 5%. He didn't even have a party.
This person went really quickly from unknown to anyone not into politics, to incredibly popular within a targeted media bubble and still unknown to anyone unfamiliar with that bubble.
it's not "at minimum one quarter of the country", the turnout was 52.56% of registered voters, so its at minimum 22.94% of 52.56% of 18 million, which is 11% of the total population of Romania.
It's obviously not about "manipulating the voting tabulation". Influencing people to vote the way you want them to is fine as long as it's not based on deceit. Is this what you can't stand?
I hate it because I have never seen it used any other way than if my side does it, it's "campaigning," and when the other side does it, it's "influencing elections."
I don't think it's about the US in its entirety, nor ads, but Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of:
I hope it's quite the opposite, since this can lead to innovation as we figure out how to depolarize social media platforms or how to develop more politically neutral online media.
I agree on the need for depolarization (go back to timelines and get rid of recommendation engines) but once you cede control of content to government even if it's for things people would agree on like "nuke that misinformation" you will end up being a mouthpiece for the government in power -whoever it be. Look at how "innocent" embeds wholly shaped the messaging on Covid and how they sidelined all dissent (lots of people of renown and stature within relevant disciplines)
That's a great point. I agree that's a danger, but please note DSA doesn't cede the control of content to government, but rather it creates an institution of (national) Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that decide whether a researcher's access to data is well-reasoned. In most cases that institution will be in a different country (the country of company's EU's HQs) than the researcher. That said, there could be malicious players involved, e.g., researchers and respective DSCs secretly recruited by a government to influence elections. This, however, sounds implausible, since in principle both the DSCs and researchers are independent from national governments.
Also, we can have depolarized recommendation algorithms. We don't need to go back all the way to timelines.
No one is saying that the industry will self-regulate. There is a right amount of regulation and all evidence points that the EU is over that limit. The US is below (probably) but closer.
Europe has a borderline shrinking economy and failed to become a player in the advanced technologies driving the world economy today. It's because they created an extremely hostile business environment, leading to founders going to the US to start their business there instead.
So now Europe is a continent full of people using American made software, running on American and Chinese made hardware, going on American social media to talk about how Europe is totally fine because they only work 9 months out of the year and don't allow young people to become billionaires.
I do think Europe should become more self-reliant. I also work a lot and rarely take any vacation time, but I don't see any sense -- except for egoism -- in working so much just to spread more AI slop online, mislead and polarize societies, or support a genocide. I think Europe has learned its lesson during the World Wars.
Clearly US Republicans, Russia, and Israel drive a push towards nationalism. Republicans and Elon Musk openly campaign for far-right European parties like AfD. You're getting causality wrong, or just don't want to recognize it, because the reality (rightfully) isn't as motivating as your image of it -- at least it shouldn't, but do you care?
This reads to me like: "please note DSA doesn't cede the control of content to government, but rather it creates a more obfuscated and shady government that pretends not to be a government, but is actually 10x worse and completely devoid of democratic control, and then it cedes control to that."
What you want is censorship. Using words like "depolarize" to hide it doesn't fool anyone. The polarization comes not from the platform, but from its users.
Censorship from an American perspective? Maybe. We used to have similar views on free speech up until WW2, the rise of propaganda and methods of mass manipulation. Since then e.g. threatening speech is beyond the line.
But don't worry. You will learn your lesson soon. Remember, your leader says you don't have to go vote anymore.
You Europeans are the ones who saw the Nazis and decided to take a page out of their playbook, not us. Saying you are censoring "to prevent Nazis" means nothing to me because I've seen the people you call "Nazis". You are just another person who pretends to favor democracy, but in reality only means if those damn voters vote for who you tell them to.
>We used to have similar views on free speech up until WW2
WW2 in Europe and the fascism and nazism that came to power and lead to it, wasn't due to European countries having too much free speech, but the contrary, they had not enough to act as a blowoff valve, so the people lashed out by electing stronger autocrats opposing the status quo to kick out the previous autocrats as revenge to the establishment. Same mindset that got Trump elected twice.
It's not like pre-Hitler and pre-Mussolini Germans and Italians were living in a golden age of freedom and prosperity, and then suddenly out of the blue with no warning, Hitler and Mussolini just randomly came to power for no reason because their people had too much free speech and one day decided to throw it all away for shits and giggles.
And today, history in Europe is repeating itself again, with unpopular governments failing their voters, trying to prevent the rise of right wing with censorship, which in turn further radicalizes the people against those in power, leading the rise of the right wing just like in pre-WW2. Nothing was learned, we're doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes every 100 years or so.
Please don't put your words in my mouth. You can speak only for yourself. And, frankly, it's not ok to write false information about a person you don't know.
I haven't put any words in your mouth. You want an authority to control what people are allowed to say and/or what people are allowed to hear. That's censorship. It makes no difference what words you use to convince yourself you aren't the authoritarian.
No, that's not what I want. I want platform transparency and accountability.
Meanwhile, you're giving yourself the right to talk lies about me without my consent when I kindly ask you not to do that. Who acts here like an authoritarian?
Also, there are already authorities you describe, and they can do whatever they want without any oversight: the platforms.
