Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 59 of 59

Thread: Something is wrong on the internet

  1. #31
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    YouTube and Google punched in their bottom line, promise more urgent action: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42110068

    A regulatory investigation would barely have got off the ground by now if that.
    But Randblade, I thought there was no issue here? That there's always iffy content on the Internets and it's no ones problem but the parents if some of that iffy content comes up next to kids videos on Youtube?

    So why are you now praising Youtube and their advertisers for taking action against the thing I said was a problem and you've said isn't?

    To answer the other dubious points in this thread I couldn't be bothered with before:

    a) Yes, Youtube does have human moderators, but nowhere near enough which is why they have to rely so heavily on algorithms to police their platform. If you'd been aware of the recent kerfuffle about their bots going around demonetizing more or less everything as unsuitable for advertisers, which was in itself a reaction the last time they got in trouble over the kind of content they have on their platform (hate speech) you'd understand this.
    b) Yes, parents have a responsibility to monitor what media their children consumes, but if something is advertised as kid friendly than I think parents should be able to take it in good faith that the thing is, in fact kid friendly and the people who marketed it is as such have a duty of care to ensure that it so. If a parent brought their child of crisps and they turned out to contain a black widow spider or rattle snake or something I think they'd have a right to be annoyed and 'well, parents should monitor what their kids eat' wouldn't cut it as a defense.
    If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.

  2. #32
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    But Randblade, I thought there was no issue here? That there's always iffy content on the Internets and it's no ones problem but the parents if some of that iffy content comes up next to kids videos on Youtube?

    So why are you now praising Youtube and their advertisers for taking action against the thing I said was a problem and you've said isn't?
    Your objection was creepy and macabre content generated for videos with titles geared toward search results. In what possible light do you think that's the same problem as sexual predators leaving suggestive comments on videos kids have uploaded themselves? The fact that both occur on the internet? That's GGT-reasoning, Steely, you're better than that.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #33
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,434
    Er, I thought that's what the article was about, it was pretty unclear. My bad.
    If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.

  4. #34
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Your objection was creepy and macabre content generated for videos with titles geared toward search results. In what possible light do you think that's the same problem as sexual predators leaving suggestive comments on videos kids have uploaded themselves? The fact that both occur on the internet? That's GGT-reasoning, Steely, you're better than that.
    Bah, the fact is that we're discussing consumer safety on the internet, and who's responsible/accountable for safeguards. That's not "GGT-reasoning"

    And just because I said parents can't possibly monitor their school-aged childrens' on-line behavior 24/7 doesn't mean web sites are absolved from their civic responsibilities. *Soft Porn*

  5. #35
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    You've not yet explained why school-kids interested in pre-school/young children cartoons like Peppa Pig and Nursery Rhymes even have 24/7 unsupervised access to the internet. I didn't even have 24/7 access to a TV at that age.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #36
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,614
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Bah, the fact is that we're discussing consumer safety on the internet, and who's responsible/accountable for safeguards. That's not "GGT-reasoning"
    Actually, "I don't like it, someone needs to fix it" and treating them like they're the same regardless of how different the problems are, would be EXACTLY why I said it was GGT-reasoning.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #37
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Actually, "I don't like it, someone needs to fix it" and treating them like they're the same regardless of how different the problems are, would be EXACTLY why I said it was GGT-reasoning.
    I don't think it's a stretch to see that kids who have "uploaded videos themselves" can be exposed to search engine results with "macabre and creepy content". You're right, they're not the same thing (and I didn't say they were). But I was commenting on the consumer safety aspect for minor children, on a platform that even adults have trouble navigating, and protecting themselves from predatory behavior.

    I don't assume that 'parental controls' on devices are enough, since a large percent of those parents (according to reported numbers) have had their email or bank accounts hacked, or their identity stolen, or some other nefarious internet experience like malware. That's what leads me to believe that more needs to be done by the providers and hosts themselves, on the front-end.


    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    You've not yet explained why school-kids interested in pre-school/young children cartoons like Peppa Pig and Nursery Rhymes even have 24/7 unsupervised access to the internet. I didn't even have 24/7 access to a TV at that age.
    When I was that age we didn't even have color TV!

    Look, all I'm saying is that "the internet" is a swamp, but it's now an integral part of every day life, including the lives of very young children. But their parents aren't necessarily equipped to sort out the dangers (they can barely protect themselves); not because they're lazy or negligent, but because "the internet" has become an unruly and unregulated giant, enabled by every smart phone or TV upgrade

  8. #38
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    Which is why parents of children young enough to be involved with what we are discussing should supervise their children. I don't allow my toddler to play on the internet unsupervised anymore than I'd allow her to play on the road unsupervised.

    If you're young enough to be interested in Peppa Pig you're young enough to be supervised.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #39
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    Rand, at what age do you think children can use the internet unsupervised?

  10. #40
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    Not before they're allowed to eg cross a busy road unsupervised.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  11. #41
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,527
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  12. #42
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,614
    I can't decide which are scummier, Swedish men or men from Bangladesh.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #43
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,527
    It's not a competition, both can win. Men are winners.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #44
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Not before they're allowed to eg cross a busy road unsupervised.
    But "busy roads" are regulated and monitored for public safety, putting child safety first (or any pedestrian). The internet doesn't do that. Try again?

  15. #45
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    These internet websites are both regulated and monitored and put child safety first. However accidents still happen on roads and things slip through on these sites.

    How are busy roads monitored? I'm not talking about crossing a road with the assistance of eg a lollypop lady, I mean crossing a busy road completely unsupervised. If you wouldn't let your child do that, then don't let them go online unsupervised either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #46
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,527
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  17. #47
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    To be fair to Facebook they have no intention of boosting Fake News with that change ...

    ... Their sole intention is to force legitimate publishers to pay them more money to boost their profile as otherwise we won't be seen.

    I run a business that's got thousands of people "liking" it in the local area on Facebook but the statistics on how many people see it without paying to boost the post are continually going down. While the cost to boost it is continuously going up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    To be fair to Facebook they have no intention of boosting Fake News with that change
    It's the only consequence of this move considering the nature of how fake news spreads, via the methods they are now pushing. Especially since Facebook recently axed the ability to flag fake news.

    Facebook wants users to spend more time interacting on their site, and that means pushing what's going to cause the most controversy.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  19. #49
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    No its a side effect.

    The primary consequence which you're disregarding is that legitimate businesses (including news media but not just them) become invisible even to their followers unless they pay to promote themselves. Meaning that more businesses will feel compelled to pay boosting Facebook's profits.

    I run a Facebook page. Half the notifications I get now from Facebook aren't interactions from those who like the page like it used to be, its Facebook spamming me with more ways to pay to boost something "to reach more people".

    Facebook don't care if something is legitimate or fake, they care about who puts more money into their ecosystem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #50
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    Don't believe their spin that Facebook want you to spend more time interacting with their site, that's long not been what Facebook are really about. Facebook's twin purpose is selling adverts and collecting data analytics which they can sell at a premium. Lots of social media companies have come and gone trying to get people to spend more time on their site while not making any money (modern case in point being Twitter). Facebook ruthlessly chases $$$.

    Facebook gives some incredibly detailed analytics on who sees and responds to your posts when you're a publisher. Including how many people have seen your post, whether they did so for free or by being boosted, gender and age breakdowns etc and more.

    4 years ago when I started regularly posting things to our page on Facebook the average post would be seen by 600-700 people for free or if I boosted it for £7 (eg £1 a day for a week) it would be seen by 2000-3000. Now I'm lucky to get 100-300 see it for free and paying to boost it costs at least a tenner to reach 1000 and £20 for 2000. Every time Facebook has done a change it has both cut free viewers and increased the cost of getting boosted ones.

    Moreover the actual Facebook site matters less to them now that it used to. They make a fortune now from their APIs trying to integrate Facebook into everything. Want to play a game in an app, why not log in via Facebook? Want to access Free WiFi at a business, why not log in via Facebook? If someone logs onto my Free Public WiFi they're given the option of doing so via Facebook, Twitter or Email. If they login with Facebook then Facebook is keeping track and getting to know more where people are going when out and about etc ... analytics they can then use down the track. While if the customer ticks the box to opt-in to marketing from me while logging in then Facebook gives me their email address, name, gender, date of birth and relationship status.

    Twitter has lost a fortune getting people to interact with their site. Facebook is making a fortune extracting value from their data they can sell and by making it almost invisible and second-nature to be using them even when you don't realise you are. Google are the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Facebook's twin purpose is selling adverts and collecting data analytics which they can sell at a premium.
    Both of these require eyes on a page, scrolling, and refreshing. The best way to get that is to stretch that length of stay or repeated visits. Which Facebook does with user interactions.

    Yes I know how Facebook works, I've talked multiple times about managing the 27+ pages for my library system.
    Without fail, the best way to increase reach was to engage users. This or that, favorites, opinions; creating a conversation.

    Not everyone can be as cool as Wendy's.

    Google is a good example to bring up. Considering how much they have pushed lately to provide search answers directly on their results page, to extend how long you stay on Google without wondering off.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  22. #52
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    Yes and with this change Facebook are suggesting they will have eyes on the page scrolling and refreshing what their friends have posted or shared, there's no need for that to be Fake News unless your friends are the variety that it is what they share. The most notorious Fake News group in the UK is Britain First but they don't appear on my news page because anyone who shares their hate filled bullshit (like your President sadly) will not appear on my friends list.

    Don't get me wrong, this change is bad for me so I would be very happy to see it scrapped. But I think a spike in fake news if that happens will be a side-effect not the reason for what Facebook are doing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  23. #53
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,527
    The most influential sources of fake or misleading news in the UK is the British media, esp. when reporting statements by British politicians and pundits. But this particular matter concerns poor, immature democracies, not countries like the UK.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  24. #54
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    You sound like a Trump supporter saying that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #55
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,527
    *shrug* It's accurate. The influence of British media far exceeds that of BF, some of the most widely consumed British media is notorious for false or misleading reporting, and British politicians & pundits are also notorious for making false or misleading statements, which are, of course, reported on extensively by British media. Regardless, the UK wasn't really the focus of that article.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  26. #56
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,527
    Great article by an industry insider:

    https://www.wired.com/story/how-trum...ussian-ads/amp
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #57
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    These internet websites are both regulated and monitored and put child safety first. However accidents still happen on roads and things slip through on these sites.

    How are busy roads monitored? I'm not talking about crossing a road with the assistance of eg a lollypop lady, I mean crossing a busy road completely unsupervised. If you wouldn't let your child do that, then don't let them go online unsupervised either.
    Rand, you're comparing crossing streets with web sites, as if all "pedestrian traffic" is the same, really?

    Look, we already have politicians ignoring that nation-states use nefarious on-line propaganda to influence democratic elections. Please tell me you don't think you have "control" of your kids' entire internet experience because you have installed 'parental controls' on your ISP....

  28. #58
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,600
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Rand, you're comparing crossing streets with web sites, as if all "pedestrian traffic" is the same, really?

    Look, we already have politicians ignoring that nation-states use nefarious on-line propaganda to influence democratic elections. Please tell me you don't think you have "control" of your kids' entire internet experience because you have installed 'parental controls' on your ISP....
    I spoke about supervision I didn't talk "parental controls".

    My daughter is only allowed online with my wife or I in the same room keeping an eye on things. She's only allowed to cross the road with my wife or I holding her hand while she crosses it. I wouldn't trust her to step onto a road by herself - to do so could be fatal. So although less serious in that it can't be fatal why would I consider her old enough for unsupervised access to the internet?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  29. #59
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    Rand, at what age do you think your child can cross the road alone? Is that the same age she'll be able to use the internet unsupervised?

    I'm not trying to be contentious. Just asking how you consider age in deciding what minors should be able to do without parental consent or supervision, and how that plays out on the internet?

    Not to mention what gov't "protections" should be provided for public acts like voting, which are now done on-line
    Last edited by GGT; 02-28-2018 at 07:22 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •