Casey Muratori (
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2024
- Learn more about what FUTO is doing here: futo.org/
Casey's channel: @MollyRocket
This talk was the keynote speech at FUTO's Don't Be Evil Summit. It took place on March 16, 2024 in Austin, TX. More of these talks will be coming to UA-cam soon. Most of them are currently available on X.
Thumbnail background designed by Freepik
It cannot be overstated how fundamentally important this issue is for the future of mankind.
Casey delivers as always.
I imagine that for such per-company legal system to work, it would have to be tied with the legal system of each country the service officially works in.
And for that tie to work, the legal system of each such country would have to have special laws to handle appeals, misconduct, and such.
Great talk by Casey Muratori!
The problem with digital due process is you first need to overturn the laws that designate corporations as people. As long as they can leverage free speech rights to deny service on political grounds this cant ever change.
You also need to work on TOS agreements by making the catchall lines about being able to be "terminated for any reason" Illegal language A tribunal wont do much if the TOS is allowed to say well we can terminate for any reason we want
@@mikeloeven all TOS should be made void, they're written like the company has license to kill, literally. we need better consumer laws, and they should suffice for what most TOS do
Casey looking jacked
Terrific presentation. Great speech Casey!
this was very interesting and timely! thanks very much for your good thinking and presentation :)
Fantastic talk!
this needs more attention and a lot more views.
What he's alluding to here is basically an Internet Bill of Rights. Now, if there only was someone proposing such an idea...
Valve uses juries to confirm bans on CSGO cheaters. Machine learning algo is run to flag the users based on their recorded gameplay, but Valve recruits users to make decisions (not sure what percentage of decisions use jurors). They also use the jury data to train their ML algo to select cheaters more accurately.
There was a video about this they made at some point, but I forget the title.
I think Mastodon works well. I see way more diverse content there but could never really get into Twitter. It's possible that the moderation problem works better when it happens in a smaller scale and when people have options.
Governments probably prefer it as it is now.
I wonder if Casey would be willing to allow comments on his videos if we had these kinds of protections. I generally agree with what he says most of the time, but it would be nice to throw around some ideas, y'know.
Comment sections are terrible. I don't blame him for not wanting to deal with it.
I'd much rather see the old "video responses" YT feature be revived, if anything. Text comments rarely have much value, in my experience. And yes, here I am both reading and writing such comments, fully aware of that irony.
@@Muskar2 And if a comment does have value, 50% of the time youtube just deletes or holds it for review anyway. Because all they want is the same dumb jokes and emojis repeated and pushed to the top comments ad infinitum, which are mostly made by bots anyway. What a coincidence. Anything you see and hear, and hopefully your beliefs and worldview, will be shaped by bot outputs. Astroturfing 2.0.
@@Muskar2 I replied that youtube hides or deletes half the comments anyway, and it deleted that comment.
@@Acetyl53 Unfortunately unsurprising
its a bit of a stretch, but if you put a technical lense on for a bit: the internet did not get big because everything can willy nilly communicate to everthing else. the were clever constraints put in place like http or REST over http that allowed interoperabillity. similarly, why not view ANY other 'constraint' in a similar manner and due process could be viewed as some sort of constraint. it can be used in productive ways. the silicon valley folks probably get rashes when they hear the term 'constraints' not realizing their whole business is based on actual constraints.
oh heck yes
Would be nice if the camera was zoomed in on Casey. :)
Computer, enhance!
@@GillesLouisReneDeleuze Enhance!
20:10 ادرأوا الحدود بالشبهات
1400 years ago the prophet said that
وما ينطق عن الهوي
Not of his own, divine revelation to govern human affairs
All of this is wishful thinking if you don't address *how it's going to be enforced*. I don't know about Casey specifically, but a lot of techbros (and certainly the FUTO people) are some flavor of free market libertarians, who in theory believe in the right of a business to deny service to anybody for any arbitrary reason, because it's MY business, MY property, so I can do what I want with it. Yet, when it comes to services like AWS and social media, all of a sudden these private businesses should be treated like public utilities, with individual rights and due process, free speech on twitter etc etc. But try asking them if a bakery should be forced to bake gay wedding cakes.
To an outsider this might seem like contradictory logic, but it makes perfect sense if you understand that most of them either are or aspire to be small business owners. In a conflict between business and customer, I choose the side of business, because I'm a business owner. But in a conflict between big business and small business, I choose the side of small business, because I'm a small business owner. So if my business depends on AWS, and AWS wants to suspend my account, my livelihood is on the line - of course I want to force AWS to provide me a service.
So, how do we enforce digital due process? One way might be to try to convince these large companies to change their policies. But these are private businesses, they are under no obligation to listen to you. It should be obvious that implementing such a due process system would require significant investment for little to no direct benefit. And since a private business is concerned with profits above all else, this is a non-starter.
Next you might say to boycott those companies, to force them into compliance by not using their product; or maybe even using a competitor's product. This is why I really liked that Casey used that plumbing system analogy, because it means he recognises that large tech companies operate like monopolies. Let's look at the examples of cloud computing services like AWS and social networks:
Say you want to use a competitor to AWS (and one that isn't Google or Microsoft or any other big company). Do such competitors exist? It takes a MASSIVE investment to build a cloud service that's preferable to just self-hosting. You can't exactly make Azure in your garage. Cloud providers know that your choice is limited, so they can just coordinate to make sure their moderation policies are similar. This way they can all boot out undesirables while not incentivising their existing customers to move to another platform. The customer will play by the rules, since they are well aware that their cloud provider can just shut off the tap.
What about social networks? Their value is in their userbase. Regular users go to the ones their friends are using, and businesses go to the ones that more potential customers are using. We would expect by the network effect for 'alternative' social media networks to flop hard, and they do: parler, minds, mastodon, truth social, vimeo, odysee... Even supposed 'bad treatment' doesn't make people move away from large platforms. Remember when reddit changed their policy regarding third-party clients, and a whole bunch of people exclaimed that reddit would regret this decision because their users would boycott? Most came back within a month. We have the same situation as before: all the social networks have similar rules, and users follow them because they want access to the service.
We see that asking nicely doesn't work, and going to a competitor doesn't work. Should we instead force the existing companies to adopt these policies through government action? Or maybe even expropriate these companies' property and nationalize the services? This obviously contradicts the free market ideology that many people in the tech sphere espouse, but that's not the main problem.
The problem is that capitalist governments are unwilling to restrict the freedom of their corporations, because they are precisely whose interests they serve. Big businesses offer large donations and high-paying jobs to government officials in exchange for favorable treatment, and this occurs in all levels of government. So when there is a proposal for a law that would affect corporate profits, it will be struck down. But they will support laws that hurt small businesses, to get rid of competition.
It's almost funny that the people who do these 'big tech censorship' talks never talk about the enforcement method, because on some level they know that in order to be effective it will have to conflict with their free market beliefs. In NONE of these discussions will you find analyses of *why* it occurs. When a company does something bad, it's because they're 'greedy' - an individual moral failing. There is never an acknowledgement of the fact that *the system we live under rewards 'greedy' companies*. So any for-profit company will be driven to use 'greedy' practices to maximise profits, because *that's what companies do*. It's their purpose. And if they don't do it, they will be outcompeted by someone who does.
You can see this mindset right on FUTO's website: it reads "Capitalism only works when the winners compete with one another". But when faced with the reality that it is the winners of capitalism themselves who stifle competition, it is forbidden to reach the logical conclusion that capitalism *doesn't* work. So what is FUTO's solution? Another private for-profit business of course! But this time we won't sell out, I promise.
A lot of these movements rest on the assumption that if we did it "right" it would just work. Somehow the world we live in now is because of not doing it "our" way (e.g. "capitalism but better"). Fundamental flaw is that these type of organizations try to solve problems from the top-down As if there's some sort of ideal system that if just implemented would be so much better. Actually, these things don't get solved that way. Most stable and productive societies were built bottom-up. It's more about the principles and morality of people participating in the system that make it work, and some systems may encourage better behavior than others, but I'd say 90% of the effectiveness comes from the a priori culture and norms of the people participating.
@@astrixx 100% right, just as the american founders said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
the question comes in what to do when you don't have a moral people to rely on, which is where imo top down approaches are the even if only temporary fixes, while you try to jump start the grass root change.
the way i see it, the problem is government colluding with these massive international companies, and that isn't capitalism, thought there was a word for that....hm...oh right that's a form of fascism.
its a similar form of corruption that democracies suffer when they find out they can just bribe the people with their own money.
if one is seeing capitalism or democracy by themselves as if they are "ideologies" then you are doomed to fail, they are tools to be used by people, it all leads back to what astrixx was saying.
Regulations hurt small players way more than big players. Maybe rules should be different for small and big ones, so that with great power comes great responsibility.
You're conveniently ignoring the documented fact that (all?) the censorship on social media is at the direct demands of government officials OR the implicit threat by governments that "you better 'moderate' the content on your platform, OR ELSE.."
you can't even build your own stuff anyway because banks and payment processors will just blacklist you as well.
I feel like what Casey wants, seems fundamentally flawed in favor of bad actors. It may raise the floor for some, but the outcomes for the worst will at-best be delayed and tied up in "due process" which also raises the ceiling for how wretched some can be.
I recall IRC having an `/ignore` feature, where each user could personally reject all communication from whichever other user(s) they picked. It was never perfect because nothing ever is (this side of the pearly gates), but restoring an individualized 'ban-just-for-me' feature would do a lot.
This is like saying the modern legal system is biased in favor of criminals. Yes, the accused have rights. And yet, the modern world is far safer than it was when the king could throw you in a dungeon for 30 years because he heard a rumor that you stole a loaf bread.
We should do it - public system of voting with evidence - its a great idea! To be honest recently i thought just that my Google account is registered account at their company like a free employee and i need - or rather that registered strawman gugl needs to obey the rules and those policemen but now i dont :) its "my precious!"
Have to stop half way through. Muratory's argument is based on public ownership of the infrastructure companies, when it's public infrastructure companies that own the public.
the thumbnail just said Слава Україні 🔱
Mucha talk about nothing. Who is going to enforce all of these? The govt? Datacentres and services are all private property, is the suggestion here to nationalize everything? If that's not needed, then why don't the existint courts already tackle these? And if not the govt, what is it then, a private internet police? How is that going to be any different and fairer than what services already do internally?
Saying "the internet needs arbitration" is not interesting, everybody knows that, it's the nitty-gritty of *how* it sould be accomplished that people have been knocking heads over for decades now, and this talk doesn't even attempt a proposal, so what's the point of it?
I think he is advocating for the creation of services that have this "digital due process" built in. It doesn't even have to be enforced: for example, instead of trying to solve the twitter problem using decentralization like mastodon did, try solving it with a clone of twitter that has some version of this due process thing instead. Right now, there is no reason for big tech to implement this kind of thing into their services, but that might change if new products arrive which do have it and people start migrating to those.
@@gabriel-ej7jbI doubt those products will ever arrive without the government forcing companies to do so. It's more work, costs more money, why should they do that? We need laws that enforce it!
Here's a clue: If we accept it as truth that you own your own ideas, then it stands to reason that you own the right to express them, and then it stands to reason that whatever infrastructure there is in place to do so mustn't be stifled by whoever is in charge of it.
He probably never did content moderation, huh.
This is a weird talk that takes standards from public institutions, measures them to big corporations and then says that your mastodon instance for three people should have an oversight board.
Parler was banned everywhere for a good reason (that is, "hella illegal"). It takes significantly less effort to make a thousand of spam accounts than to find them, close them and then write a report with the exact reasons for that decision.
This is basically an "I want to speak to the manager" talk, and while having someone to speak to is obviously good, it just isn't feasible with open registration. Ban evasion is too easy. lose one account and you can make a hundred more.
It is possible to have a service with a perfect digital due process, but first you'd have to send a written signed form to register an account.
This is total word salad. What is Parler doing that Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram aren't doing? What are they doing that's "hella illegal" (how legal of you).
What does the parler situation have to do with spam accounts? How is that related at all?
@@VACatholic As I recall, it was less that what they were doing was illegal (they had chosen not to perform any kind of content moderation on their platform), and more that that lack of content moderation meant that there was a reasonable expectation that illegal material would end up on the AWS servers and being transmitted over the apple and google infrastructure as a result. That basically left all three companies in the position of either performing moderation themselves or, much more easily, simply denying them service. And, as I recall, Parler was told this by all three platforms and chose to play chicken.
@@Parker8752Why would aws etc do any moderation? Does the postal system read your letters? Does the bus or train driver check whether you're on your way to commit a crime? You've probably sold an old possession before, if the buyer turned out to be a pedophile would you consider yourself his accomplice?
@@Parker8752 is is absolute wrong, parler did moderate, ilegal stuff was shut down.
Facebook requires real name and surname anyway. So it can be forced to provide oversight board.
It could work that if you want the law protection, you have to disclose your personal data.
I’m a strong believer that politics creates more problems than it solves.
There shouldn’t be any content moderation in the first place.
Every person should be held accountable for their own content.
If you put underage adult content on my platform, I’m not going to moderate you, but I am going to report you to the authorities.
Every user should know very well what can and shouldn’t be put on the internet.
If you tell me “all programmers smell bad”, I might disagree with you, but technically you’re not saying anything illegal so why should I moderate you, unless I have an ulterior motive to shut you up?
If everyone takes responsibility for their own content, it should help a lot in creating a better internet.
You don’t have to follow my account, you don’t have to visit my website, you don’t have to invite me over for Christmas dinner.
If you cross me in the street and hear me say “All penguins are fowl”, would you punch me in the face or ignore me?
So why would you treat me any differently over the internet?
Live and let live.