Loading...
businesseducationtechnology
Obi-Wan vs Bill Ban
About this Episode
Obi-Wan vs Bill Ban
Australia is considering a ban on social media use for children under the age of 16. Interestingly, the ban would apply even if parents consented to their children using such platforms. Biometric testing for this system is expected to begin later this year. On the one hand, it’s good that the issue is being acknowledged and systemic attempts are being made to address it. On the other hand, it’s easy to imagine workarounds, from VPNs to registering devices in other countries. What puzzles me, though, is why, in a world increasingly captivated by AI, we’re not exploring effective methods of using this tool to cleanse social networks of harmful content. Instead, we choose the seemingly simplest but least effective route. Why aren’t platform operators obligated to verify content and counteract harmful phenomena? Public television and radio stations are required to control their content. The responsibility for socially responsible business practices falls squarely on them. So why do we accept that social platforms are not accountable for the content they host? If they can recommend content with surgical precision through behavioral engines, why can’t they counteract harmful material? Ah, yes, there’s freedom of speech and access to adult content. The business must go on, of course. It reminds me of Tolkien’s Gandalf or his mentor-like counterpart, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Someone would have to determine what is good and what is bad. Social reactions, like reporting harmful content, are ineffective because they require statistical confirmation. Even when such confirmation exists, platforms often ignore reports. I’ve conducted experiments, and current mechanisms are ineffective. What about AI? Could it serve something positive instead of churning out frivolous images or monotonous melodies? Absolutely. The problem is, no one seems interested. Youth under 16 years old make up over 30% of social media users. The proportion of educational and worldview-shaping content is less than 10% of the platforms' offerings. The rest consists of drama, controversies, donation-seeking (e.g., TikTokers insulting viewers with comments like, “Are you too poor to send gifts? Get lost.”), and various scams. The problem is, such content drives clicks and views. What if live streams were automatically blocked (like they currently are when someone lights up a cigarette on camera), and the creator was permanently banned? Would humanity suffer a loss? Blocking a user’s account for a single indecent word or harmful behavior could change platforms forever—perhaps even drive them to extinction. Looking at it this way, we face a question: should we prohibit children from watching drunken brawls, or should we ban online broadcasts of such events altogether? Wouldn’t it be better to sell alcohol or other substances in strictly designated and controlled locations (physical and digital) rather than create complicated access restriction systems? Why should all citizens fund control systems when the costs could be passed on to companies running such businesses? It reminds me of establishments like strip clubs or nightclubs. Nobody demands biometric proof or other complex control systems there. Clear regulations apply to business owners, with severe penalties for violations.
Australia is considering a ban on social media use for children under the age of 16. Interestingly, the ban would apply even if parents consented to their children using such platforms. Biometric testing for this system is expected to begin later this year. On the one hand, it’s good that the issue is being acknowledged and systemic attempts are being made to address it. On the other hand, it’s easy to imagine workarounds, from VPNs to registering devices in other countries. What puzzles me, though, is why, in a world increasingly captivated by AI, we’re not exploring effective methods of using this tool to cleanse social networks of harmful content. Instead, we choose the seemingly simplest but least effective route. Why aren’t platform operators obligated to verify content and counteract harmful phenomena? Public television and radio stations are required to control their content. The responsibility for socially responsible business practices falls squarely on them. So why do we accept that social platforms are not accountable for the content they host? If they can recommend content with surgical precision through behavioral engines, why can’t they counteract harmful material? Ah, yes, there’s freedom of speech and access to adult content. The business must go on, of course. It reminds me of Tolkien’s Gandalf or his mentor-like counterpart, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Someone would have to determine what is good and what is bad. Social reactions, like reporting harmful content, are ineffective because they require statistical confirmation. Even when such confirmation exists, platforms often ignore reports. I’ve conducted experiments, and current mechanisms are ineffective. What about AI? Could it serve something positive instead of churning out frivolous images or monotonous melodies? Absolutely. The problem is, no one seems interested. Youth under 16 years old make up over 30% of social media users. The proportion of educational and worldview-shaping content is less than 10% of the platforms' offerings. The rest consists of drama, controversies, donation-seeking (e.g., TikTokers insulting viewers with comments like, “Are you too poor to send gifts? Get lost.”), and various scams. The problem is, such content drives clicks and views. What if live streams were automatically blocked (like they currently are when someone lights up a cigarette on camera), and the creator was permanently banned? Would humanity suffer a loss? Blocking a user’s account for a single indecent word or harmful behavior could change platforms forever—perhaps even drive them to extinction. Looking at it this way, we face a question: should we prohibit children from watching drunken brawls, or should we ban online broadcasts of such events altogether? Wouldn’t it be better to sell alcohol or other substances in strictly designated and controlled locations (physical and digital) rather than create complicated access restriction systems? Why should all citizens fund control systems when the costs could be passed on to companies running such businesses? It reminds me of establishments like strip clubs or nightclubs. Nobody demands biometric proof or other complex control systems there. Clear regulations apply to business owners, with severe penalties for violations.
No transcript available for this episode.
