This world sounds awesome…
19193520-1BEB-44A6-B4C6-D62D2C85EED2.jpeg
19193520-1BEB-44A6-B4C6-D62D2C85EED2.jpeg
Follow
@Jdogg247 In related news, today, the WEF launched the Global Coalition for Digital Safety which may have partially have to do with this.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/global-framework-regulate-harmful-online-content/
@xianc78 @Jdogg247 the dumbest part about this is that people have always been mean, it’s only a global problem because it can finally be regulated in a global manner
🌿 
@xianc78 @Jdogg247
>Why we need a global framework to regulate harm online
https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/advancing-digital-safety-a-framework-to-align-global-action
>pdf
>In industries such as transportation or energy, adherence to clear safety standards is required. Digital platforms that enable social communications should
also have baseline safety thresholds, industry‐wide standards and protocols, which do not currently exist.
Imagine comparing something physical in nature and compare it to something fully digital so that you can make rule for digital space.
>https://www.weprotect.org
>https://www.technologycoalition.org
Think of the children™ .
>In many cases, providing users with greater privacy control enhances safety. For example, allowing users on social platforms to set their profile to private can protect them from unwanted access. In this way, privacy is a mechanism for safety.
as always these people are trying to regulate something they don't even understand 
>When an oppressed minority seeks equality and justice, and freedom from the harm and violence brought on by the systematically privileged speech of others, that’s not censorship, that’s accountability
>Safety should be viewed as a revenue‐generating investment rather than a cost.
Incentivizing competition based on safety can continue to raise the bar of what
good looks like for safe online communities
>Without competition, dominant firms don’t have to invent or innovate
because their customers have nowhere else to go. The lack of competitive
alternatives has allowed these companies to claim that this business model
is the inevitable monetization choice.
>Considerations for implementing standards
>Harm thresholds. Safety thresholds may depend on clear technical definitions. Yet cases of grooming are complicated for both humans and machines to assess since they consist of a set of textual and/or video exchanges over time.
>Establishing a meaningful threshold
>Containment or contamination: Is an understanding of illegal material being used (e.g. CSEAM) that is like containment (e.g. nuclear regulation around radiation)? Or is it more like water and public utilities: in the case of incitement to violence, can randomized spot checks work?
>Lead author
>Connie Moon Sehat
>Director, News Quality Initiative, Hacks/Hackers, USA; Senior Project Fellow, World Economic Forum
>Full list of contributors
>Peer community: Joining existing initiatives such as GARM is recommended.
>world federation of advertisers
https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm
TL;DR The whole justification for this crap are pedos and hate speech.
>Why we need a global framework to regulate harm online
https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/advancing-digital-safety-a-framework-to-align-global-action
>In industries such as transportation or energy, adherence to clear safety standards is required. Digital platforms that enable social communications should
also have baseline safety thresholds, industry‐wide standards and protocols, which do not currently exist.
Imagine comparing something physical in nature and compare it to something fully digital so that you can make rule for digital space.
>https://www.weprotect.org
>https://www.technologycoalition.org
Think of the children™ .
>In many cases, providing users with greater privacy control enhances safety. For example, allowing users on social platforms to set their profile to private can protect them from unwanted access. In this way, privacy is a mechanism for safety.
as always these people are trying to regulate something they don't even understand >When an oppressed minority seeks equality and justice, and freedom from the harm and violence brought on by the systematically privileged speech of others, that’s not censorship, that’s accountability
>Safety should be viewed as a revenue‐generating investment rather than a cost.
Incentivizing competition based on safety can continue to raise the bar of what
good looks like for safe online communities
>Without competition, dominant firms don’t have to invent or innovate
because their customers have nowhere else to go. The lack of competitive
alternatives has allowed these companies to claim that this business model
is the inevitable monetization choice.
>Considerations for implementing standards
>Harm thresholds. Safety thresholds may depend on clear technical definitions. Yet cases of grooming are complicated for both humans and machines to assess since they consist of a set of textual and/or video exchanges over time.
>Establishing a meaningful threshold
>Containment or contamination: Is an understanding of illegal material being used (e.g. CSEAM) that is like containment (e.g. nuclear regulation around radiation)? Or is it more like water and public utilities: in the case of incitement to violence, can randomized spot checks work?
>Lead author
>Connie Moon Sehat
>Director, News Quality Initiative, Hacks/Hackers, USA; Senior Project Fellow, World Economic Forum
>Full list of contributors
>Peer community: Joining existing initiatives such as GARM is recommended.
>world federation of advertisers
https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm
TL;DR The whole justification for this crap are pedos and hate speech.
