@phnt The work plan seems to be relatively benign, though:
GtS interaction controls, flagging, blocking, best practices.
Automated filtering was voted down.
7
Replies
0
Boosts
@silverpill @phnt >Automated filtering was voted down.
Hmm, I see that one of the recommendations from the person who opened this issue includes a proprietary enterprise service. I think that's a major point against it.
https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-trust-and-safety/issues/28
But what I'm more interested in is whether they wants to filter text? If so, wouldn't it be easier to just crudely add a lexicon containing tens of thousands of sensitive words to block users from posting, like some social media censorship? 
@silverpill @phnt >Automated filtering was voted down.
Hmm, I see that one of the recommendations from the person who opened this issue includes a proprietary enterprise service. I think that's a major point against it.
https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-trust-and-safety/issues/28
But what I'm more interested in is whether they wants to filter text? If so, wouldn't it be easier to just crudely add a lexicon containing tens of thousands of sensitive words to block users from posting, like some social media censorship?
@silverpill @phnt >Automated filtering was voted down.
Hmm, I see that one of the recommendations from the person who opened this issue includes a proprietary enterprise service. I think that's a major point against it.
https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-trust-and-safety/issues/28
But what I'm more interested in is whether they wants to filter text? If so, wouldn't it be easier to just crudely add a lexicon containing tens of thousands of sensitive words to block users from posting, like some social media censorship?
@caohuak @phnt I think they are interested in CSAM detection, but once the infrastructure for large-scale filtering exists it can be re-used for whatever authoritarian governments come up with.
@phnt By the way, I found a fun way to sabotage those task forces. You can publish a FEP describing some mechanism (e.g. interaction controls), and say that it is patented. No one in fedi would give a shit, obviously, but this seems to be very important for those working at W3C
@phnt By the way, I found a fun way to sabotage those task forces. You can publish a FEP describing some mechanism (e.g. interaction controls), and say that it is patented. No one in fedi would give a shit, obviously, but this seems to be very important for those working at W3C
@phnt By the way, I found a fun way to sabotage those task forces. You can publish a FEP describing some mechanism (e.g. interaction controls), and say that it is patented. No one in fedi would give a shit, obviously, but this seems to be very important for those working at W3C
