It should be well understood at this point that attempts by internet platforms to automagically do away with sexualized content on their sites via algorithms are… imperfect, if we want to be kind. The more accurate description is to say that these filters are so laughably horrible at actually filtering out objectionable content that they seem farcical. When, for instance, Tumblr can’t tell the difference between porn and pictures of Super Mario villains, and when Facebook can’t do likewise between porn and bronze statues or educational breast cancer images consisting of stick figures…well, it’s easy to see that there’s a problem.
Notably, some of the examples above, and many others, are years old. You might have thought that in the intervening years, the most prominent sites would have gotten their shit together. You would be decidedly wrong, as evidenced by Facebook’s refusal to allow Devolver Digital, the publishers of the forthcoming video game GRIS, to publish this launch trailer for the game, due to its sexual content.
Did you spot the sexual content? I know you probably think you did. Or, you at least you think you know what confused the filters, and you probably think it had something to do with the close up on the female character’s face.
Well, ha ha, jokes on all of us, because it was this image for…reasons?
Yes, the outline image of a crumbling sculpture is what set off Facebook’s puritanical alarms. Now, Devolver Digital appealed this with Facebook, but, amazingly, that appeal was rejected by Facebook, which argued for some reason that it “doesn’t allow nudity.” Except, of course, there is no damned nudity in the trailer. In fact, there isn’t anything even remotely close to nudity. This is about as clean as it gets.
Let’s go to the folks at Devolver Digital for a reaction to the failed appeal.
A Devolver representative tells Kotaku “this is stupid”.
I could try to add something to that, but why bother? Facebook filters: this is stupid.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Techdirt.
In a very unfortunate bit of news, the Canadian Supreme Court on Friday ruled that there is no source protection for journalists in Canada, and a Vice Media reporter, Ben Makuch, is required to hand over his sources from an investigation he did with a Canadian man who claimed to have joined ISIS. Makuch had interviewed Farad Mohamed Shirdon back in 2015, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) demanded access to all of his information. Vice and Makuch refused. In 2016, a lower court ruled against Vice and on appeal, the media organization lost again. Given those two loses, perhaps the eventual Supreme Court ruling isn’t that surprising, but it is still extremely disappointing and worrisome.
As Vice noted in an editorial posted after the ruling, this is a dark day for press freedom:
Lawyers for VICE Canada argued unsuccessfully through three levels of court that the RCMP is fishing for information and is effectively forcing a journalist to be an agent of the state. With this court decision hanging in the balance for years, Makuch has continued to produce fearless and important journalism on sensitive and often dangerous topics. Today’s decision will no doubt have a chilling effect on both sources, who may be reluctant to talk to reporters, and on journalists themselves, who could be less inclined to report on sensitive issues.
While our lawyers lost, we strongly believe that the journalism—which is already under attack across the globe—needs to be free from state intervention.
To some extent, we’ve dealt with this issue in the US as well, where some believe the 1st Amendment should already protect reporters and media orgs from giving up information on sources, but where the government still has gone to court — such as in the case of James Risen — to try to force journalists to reveal sources.
And while there have been some attempts at creating so-called “shield laws” against these sorts of things, unfortunately, nearly every attempt to do so would require the government to define who counts as a journalist, which would also be a huge 1st Amendment problem. (And, of course, over in Europe there’s an issue where Romania has been trying to use the GDPR to force a reporter to cough up sources).
I know that some people don’t think this is that big of a deal, but it is a huge deal if you want journalists to be free to investigate and report on things like government corruption and abuse. To do that, journalists rely on sources providing them information — and to get sources to provide you information, journalists frequently need to guarantee them anonymity for fairly obvious reasons. But when governments can force away that anonymity, it creates a huge mess. Sources will be much less willing to come forward, as they know that even if a journalist promises protection, they can’t guarantee it against a demand from the government. This will lead to significantly less whistleblowing, especially in important cases.
As Vice says:
It should go without saying: we are all better off when journalism operates freely, without interference from the state. Otherwise, leaders remain unchecked, massive corporations undermine elections, and the stories of the most vulnerable members of society remain untold. This might seem like hyperbole, but a quick glance at the recent headlines in any major publication should serve as proof that these things are happening.
It’s too bad that Canada has decided to flush that kind of openness away.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Techdirt.
Enlarge / A West Covina firefighter pulls a hose away from a horse barn that burns as the Mendocino Complex Fire moves through the area on July 31, 2018 in Lakeport, California. (credit: Getty Images | Justin Sullivan)
A fire department whose data was throttled by Verizon Wireless while it was fighting California’s largest-ever wildfire has rejected Verizon’s claim that the throttling was just a customer service error and “has nothing to do with net neutrality.” The throttling “has everything to do with net neutrality,” a Santa Clara County official said.
Verizon yesterday acknowledged that it shouldn’t have continued throttling Santa Clara County Fire Department’s “unlimited” data service while the department was battling the Mendocino Complex Fire. Verizon said the department had chosen an unlimited data plan that gets throttled to speeds of 200kbps or 600kbps after using 25GB a month but that Verizon failed to follow its policy of “remov[ing] data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations.”
“This was a customer support mistake” and not a net neutrality issue, Verizon said.
Read 17 remaining paragraphs | Comments