Silver Lifetime
- Messages
- 42,923
- Reactions
- 111,538
So I recently interviewed with an org that develops "attribution" systems - i.e., tracks and identifies copyrighted material online. One thing that was mentioned in passing, was the fact that their systems are using by the gov to identify, track and control "toxic content". I didn't ask for more detail - that was enough for me (I was not considered for the position, so I did not have to turn it down or ask for more info).
I don't have a right to tell FB/et. al. what they will or will not present on their social media - these are private sector orgs, and just like NWFA, they have the right to say what they will or will not allow. I may or may not like it, but it is their right.
But the government? Identifying and tracking, ok, I don't like it, but I can allow that there are situations where it is within their aegis.
Censoring by "control"? Nope. Disturbing to say the least.
The only things I can think of off the top of my head that should be censored would be content like child porn.
I don't have a right to tell FB/et. al. what they will or will not present on their social media - these are private sector orgs, and just like NWFA, they have the right to say what they will or will not allow. I may or may not like it, but it is their right.
But the government? Identifying and tracking, ok, I don't like it, but I can allow that there are situations where it is within their aegis.
Censoring by "control"? Nope. Disturbing to say the least.
The only things I can think of off the top of my head that should be censored would be content like child porn.