In my opinion the problem is not just legislative but also technical. This is the same problem you have when creating anonymous or decentralized networks and services -- content must be policed and censored to some extent.
I think the solution lies in having an authority model. You establish authority models that vouch for identities and reputations, you build solutions based on protocols and services that use these authority models to establish trust.
Let us look at existing authority models in society:
- The BBB,chambers of commerce and similar authoritative bodies allow consumers to identify a business and lookup it's reputation.
- The state bar associations in America (example) identify lawyers. Public court records allow guaging quality of a lawyer.
- DMV/DPS identify motorists and allow a driving record of a motorist to be disclosed/certified so that others can measure the reputation of a motorist.
The list goes on. My point herr is that the internet has authority models but they don't to the most part identify clients and they don't measure reputation.
If for example I have anonymous network, it would allow identity-reputation vectors of participants to be measured in a way that preserves anonymity. The SPLC can track hate speech activity and maintain a service that allows other participants to cross check reputation before they propagate content from that participant. The FBI and Interpol can track anonymous participants that participate in childporn , a person running a node in this anonymous network can forbid nodes that don't have a reputation certificate clearing them of such activity from connecting.
So back to Sacha's views. Yeah these internet companies should do more but that more is to come up with a protocol and standard where legitimate authorities (such as a news/journalist validation authority for example) to certify reputation diffenrent participants and allow users to opt in or opt out of cebsorship under that authority model.
The internet itself with ICANN, certification authorities,dnssec,etc... Is filled with messes of poorly implemented authority models. Like why is .com not under a commerce authority? Why is .org being sold to private equity? why are CA's validating domains when they play no role in domain registration,hosting or revocation? Things just got pieces togethet instead figuring out who has enough merit to be authoritative on a subject?
Do we perhaps need public funding to sustain proper authorities?
I think the solution is solvable but there is absolutely no time left, this needs to happen yesterday!
Get into the history of science, and it will become apparent that getting at the "truth" is one hell of an uphill climb. Whether it was The Church vs Galileo, or Keys vs Yudkin, this is an area where "authorities" have failed greatly and frequently, and honest open debate remains the most effective tool we have--albeit an imperfect one.
To appoint fucking salary-persons as the "facts" police--people more invested in steady paychecks and institutional authority rather than the study of the thing itself--will only yield error, confusion, and tyranny.
Did you even read what I said? Does science itself not use academic journals ans peer review in it's authority model?
The whole "church" vs Galileo thing was hugely misportrayed in popular culture. Most people believed him but there was corruption like you said where those in power needed him gone. So we are not trying to find a magical source of truth to all things here! We are simply translating existing societal authority models to the internet.
If you think there is a unifyig authority model (which i doubt you do) the production (the internet) is not where you test it out right? The idea is not prevent another death of another galileo but to prevent death of magelan,columbus ,newton,einstein,etc.... as well. Each society in it's own way determines what authority models are authoritative over domains. In science you have peer review, in law enforcement you "salary men" as you called them, in finance you have credit reporting companies (which I dislike),etc... while you are trying to replace all that with a one-size-fits-all society is being torn apart!
The first amendment is one of the enlightenment's greatest progeny. It is a right that we Americans possess, and we will defend it--with violence if need be.
If Borat doesn't like that, he should stick to Britain.
I think the solution lies in having an authority model. You establish authority models that vouch for identities and reputations, you build solutions based on protocols and services that use these authority models to establish trust.
Let us look at existing authority models in society:
- The BBB,chambers of commerce and similar authoritative bodies allow consumers to identify a business and lookup it's reputation. - The state bar associations in America (example) identify lawyers. Public court records allow guaging quality of a lawyer. - DMV/DPS identify motorists and allow a driving record of a motorist to be disclosed/certified so that others can measure the reputation of a motorist.
The list goes on. My point herr is that the internet has authority models but they don't to the most part identify clients and they don't measure reputation.
If for example I have anonymous network, it would allow identity-reputation vectors of participants to be measured in a way that preserves anonymity. The SPLC can track hate speech activity and maintain a service that allows other participants to cross check reputation before they propagate content from that participant. The FBI and Interpol can track anonymous participants that participate in childporn , a person running a node in this anonymous network can forbid nodes that don't have a reputation certificate clearing them of such activity from connecting.
So back to Sacha's views. Yeah these internet companies should do more but that more is to come up with a protocol and standard where legitimate authorities (such as a news/journalist validation authority for example) to certify reputation diffenrent participants and allow users to opt in or opt out of cebsorship under that authority model.
The internet itself with ICANN, certification authorities,dnssec,etc... Is filled with messes of poorly implemented authority models. Like why is .com not under a commerce authority? Why is .org being sold to private equity? why are CA's validating domains when they play no role in domain registration,hosting or revocation? Things just got pieces togethet instead figuring out who has enough merit to be authoritative on a subject?
Do we perhaps need public funding to sustain proper authorities?
I think the solution is solvable but there is absolutely no time left, this needs to happen yesterday!