News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Crime of Curiosity. Parent comment

Re:The Crime of Curiosity by donmcronald on Thursday September 16, 2021 @05:51PM (#28558167)
> The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general.

I fall pretty strongly on the side of combatting misinformation, but I disagree with outright removal of content. I think it should be flagged as misinformation, but left available. Put another way, I'm a fan of labelling, not censoring.

I want transparency. "Our misinformation bot rated this as a 90% chance of being misinformation because XYZ." I bet the only reason we can't have that is because the ML bots suck so much the tech industry is scared to implement any system that might be open to scrutiny or analysis. It's a bit ironic.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by nine_k on Thursday September 16, 2021 @05:57PM (#28558233)
Marking is helpful. Removal is not.

Very much like spam: filters are good but not 100% good, so there must be a way to look at what the filter has rejected, and allow the reader to judge.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by lolc on Thursday September 16, 2021 @07:48PM (#28559312)
The mails that make it to your spambox are a pithy few compared to the mass of dropped mail. You'd be very unhappy with your spambox if the filters weren't so judgmental.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by dvdkon on Friday September 17, 2021 @05:24AM (#28563061)
I haven't actually set up my mail server to move mail flagged as spam to a separate folder, and I've gotten roughly 4 spam emails in the year or so I've had this address. My mail server also doesn't drop anything unless it fails DMARC.

I've had to deal with Microsoft outright dropping everything from a domain (not on this server), so I do know it happens, I'm just not convinced it's necessary.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by lolc on Monday September 20, 2021 @04:03AM (#28591334)
That may be because your address hasn't made it to the spammers yet. My address has been public for a while and not filtering meant deleting a few mails per hour. Even a Gmail-address I'm not using gets a good amount of spam, probably because other people have tried using it to sign up for accounts.

> I'm just not convinced it's necessary.

Well yes in some special cases dropping mails is not necessary. My mistake to assume your case is one of the common cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by notriddle on Friday September 17, 2021 @10:33AM (#28565941)
Yeah, because there’s less email spam now than there used to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spam#Statistics_and_esti...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by nradov on Thursday September 16, 2021 @06:39PM (#28558699)
There is no such thing as a bot which can identify misinformation with 90% accuracy.

Google has some very advanced natural language processing technology. Try this Google search: "What year did Neil Armstrong land on Mars?"

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by dragonsky67 on Thursday September 16, 2021 @06:56PM (#28558865)
Wow, unless you happen to know that the Sea of Tranquility is on the moon (seas on the moon, no way), then you are well on your way to believing that Armstrong is relaxing on a Martian beach....
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by reginold on Thursday September 16, 2021 @06:10PM (#28558387)
Appreciate this perspective here. I'm against censorship, and am surprised how clear your "label not remove" concept is. I like it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Crime of Curiosity by perihelions on Thursday September 16, 2021 @06:27PM (#28558581)
YouTube's ML bots flagged an episode of Michael Osterholm's podcast. If you're unfamiliar, that's a former COVID advisor to President Biden.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28003635 ("Ask HN: Googler/YTer Able to Help with CIDRAP's Dr Osterholm's YT Strike?")

[ Parent | on HN ]