Skip to main content

Social Media

Social Media Standards

We see more and more inciteful postings appearing on various social media sites.  These include of course recruitment to terrorism – the big one.  Social media sites state they are continually trying to reduce such postings, but they are completely on their own recognizance on how to do it and what to do.  Thus, little is achieved.  They don’t know what to do and simply do not wish to spend the resources to do anything.

What is currently missing is a set of standards for what should not be posted.  Such standards for what cannot be transmitted on broadcast television do exist, and while they are mild they have worked for decades. 

Ask anyone, I do not favor more regulations, but it is time the government should create an independent agency to first study this problem and then develop standards and guidelines.  Representatives of the the industry, elected officials, and media experts should be involved. However, unless and until there are standards, the social media industry founders in darkness.  This leads to inaction – the current state of affairs.

Some suggestions might include:
a.     No pornography
b.     No images of mutilation, murder, war crimes, assassination.
c.     No  language that incites or encourages violence.


I believe much of this can be automatically and rapidly determined with current deep learning and big data techniques.  Of course, inventive schemes will be developed to contravene these restrictions, but software developers will have guidelines and targets with which to modify and improve their software.  The process will take some years, but it must start today. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view