MARK ZUKERBERG WANTS TO GIVE THE INTERNET RULES

Sigh time to spin up another horizen node

>Third, effective privacy and data protection needs a globally harmonized framework. People around the world have called for comprehensive privacy regulation in line with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, and I agree. I believe it would be good for the Internet if more countries adopted regulation such as GDPR as a common framework.

I haven’t had Facebook for the last decade, who even uses it still?

t. 28 yo boomer

Fuck off Mark, along with your shit website.

tldr

Zuck wants to outsource content policing (rules against hate speech etc) to a 3rd party that all websites would use

So if you sue facebook for banning conservatives, they can hide behind the "industry standards" of some 3rd party

haha it's funny how he is under criminal investigation and is now allegedly saying the internet needs rules. What a fucking faggot

Honestly, he makes his points very well.

> I also believe a common global framework — rather than regulation that varies significantly by country and state — will ensure that the Internet does not get fractured, entrepreneurs can build products that serve everyone, and everyone gets the same protections.

This cuck is not even hiding that he's a fucking globalist anymore. It really is happening holy shit.

Attached: 1533762117630.jpg (680x680, 44K)

future generations are gonna keep telling us how lucky we were to experience the golden age of free speech internet.

Attached: 1407675243688.jpg (2793x1862, 418K)

>One idea is for third-party bodies to set standards governing the distribution of harmful content and to measure companies against those standards. Regulation could set baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum.
and who will (((they))) be user this third party coincidence maybe

hahahhahahahahahha kill yourself right now

the internet has become trash since widespread adoption. it doesn't matter whether they establish new rules or not. day of the EMP when

Read it again and try to ignore the PR jargon.

Attached: 1554071607243[1].jpg (1800x1800, 276K)

I don't really know, but it's clear that we do need standards regarding social media.

Screw off TROLL.

Golden age died around 2007. We're in the decline right now, though things will of course continue to get much worse

That Jew fucker needs to fuck off.
Facebook was ruined by him being a faggot and crying because Hilary lost.
You can't post anything right of being a transgender faggot without being banned.
He needs to keep his little queer hands off my internets.

Attached: 1551541374154.jpg (549x545, 698K)

>but it's clear that we do need standards regarding social media.
I apologizes not so clear to me, what additional censorship would you like?

This. I can't help but feel like there is no way freedom will win the information war. You don't suddenly wake up one day and the world turned into a dystopia. It happens slowly without people noticing. I just hope it's not too late to turn this around.

for those who hate WaPo and won't click that shit

Attached: Mark Zuckerberg- The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas..png (1920x3646, 1.14M)

literally kill yourself zuckerberg

Need to get Elon Musk or someone with a lot of followers to continually retweet this image

I want to give Mark Zuckerberg 16 exit wounds but that isnt going to happen either.

>listen this piece of shit called the "internet" is losing me millions, so you need to help me break it like a horse so i can ride it to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, fuck you
*mickey mouse chuckle*
huh huh! hey senpai, lets fix this thing!

You mean for ants.

FACEBOOK = LIFELOG

Mark Zuckerberg is going to be indicted this year and he's going to be executed for his crimes.

click on the filenema link faggot

Why are modern rich people so fucking retarded?

>The world need protection
>Thus lets centralize the protection system
>what could possibly go wrong?

>You mean for ants.
>1920x3646
you must be a phonefag with low skill

>The Southern Poverty Law Center has determined that these posts are hatespeech.

Attached: 1551769569282.gif (400x292, 1.96M)

>it's clear that we do need standards regarding social media.

No we don't. If the left was able to tolerate difference of opinion on the internet, literally the only content that would deserve a "standard" of moderation would be illegal content, and the 3rd party in this case should be the law, not some Zuck chosen company that will most likely have a clear political bias. This is how it was before the left suddenly decided that certain opinions should get you banned. People need to be able to say whatever they want as long as it's within the bounds of the law in that country. Fuck this cuck and his globalist "standard" system. If China wants to be an authoritarian hell hole where people have to use TOR to speak out against the government, let them, it's not my fucking problem. I'd rather live on a planet knowing such a country exist than live in a globalist dystopia where a universal power gains the power to enforce freedom of speech restrictions in multiple different countries.

You fucking PR cucks always try to make your regulation sound good by implying that it's only going to prevent "HATEFUL" or "HARMFUL" content being online but you don't seem to realize that smart people understand that you'll have the power to decide what HATEFUL or HARMFUL means and what opinions meet the description. L

ok so massive censorship of content the Church finds offensive. Protties BTFO once again. We took your printing press and we will take your internet. Worship the Pope as you were told the first time!

And people will beg them to do it, like how they begged the FCC to take over the internet. Thankfully Trump's FCC refused to give themselves that kind of power.

tl,dr:
US government is to weak on freedom, we need
globohomo super government to monitor the internet, controlled by the jews

>we do need standards regarding social media.

Literally impossible to apply, in fact that the main thing peoples talked about when social media were still in their infancy. You cannot enforce a set of rule over social standard and discussion, like I don't mean in a theoritically impossible due to rethoric kind of way, I mean literally impossible in all shape or form because to enforce it is to basically encourage the spread of peoples away from the medium where said rules would be enforced. It;s like you do not even understand why Jow Forums and 8 and infinity exist.

just disable javascript
the eu should make javascript illegal

Dont forget they get to chose the “independent” body that decides what acceptabke speech is. Want to bet the adl, aclu, splc, and other leftist groups decide. Maybe they throw in a neocon group in that get overruled all the time but allows facebook to say they were bipartisan.

>Global standard that keeps the EU and China and even little shitters like Thailand and their laws about royalty happy

There would be a new unregulated P2P internet before the end of the year. Fuck it, let's do it, digital accelerationism toward an internet that might be almost as good as it was in the 90s.

>the Darkweb hosts an abundance of illegal activity
>internet censorship forces channers into Darkweb
>Jow Forums is now an illegal cyber terrorist organization

>Globalist third party sets worldwide standards for removing “harmful content”
No thanks Orwell

Attached: DD511963-2FAD-491A-8300-9A647B583020.jpg (960x895, 65K)

>the lizard king doesn't know about the 47 rules of the internet

Attached: 1551698247583.png (220x220, 40K)

>regulation
He keeps using that word, but neither "hate speech" nor "terrorist propaganda" is illegal... yet.
Does he know something that we don't?

Attached: E7lzd5g.png (320x320, 55K)

When are Zuckerturd and Bezos going to feel the wrath of a monopoly busting event lads?

Heh I remember that. I also like how he grovels and wants to suck Xi Jinping's microdick. He even offered to let him name his child or something, if I remember correctly. What a fucking traitor, he should be imprisoned.

Why are the Jews and the Chinese like two peas in a pod? They want to take all your money subjugate everyone. Thats probably why he married that woman.

>government can't give online freedom of speech but companies can
>literally anything that happens in the world now is through the internet
Fuck the first amendment I guess? Company can just go over governments thanks to their pull and "muh private company". Democracy is kill, freedom of speech is kill, all because of a few triggered faggots online, years and years of soldiers dying and defending the country for these freedoms have been thrown out the window in 1 decade, men that gave their life to defend their country are just handed out for free to immigrants.

Attached: 1553750761571.gif (1000x546, 412K)

Facebook lobbies against every single article of GDPR all day long.
But now he turns around and writes:
>People around the world have called for comprehensive privacy regulation in line with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, and I agree.
>I believe it would be good for the Internet if more countries adopted regulation such as GDPR as a common framework.

One minute he's saying
>we're trying our best to remove at huge cost to us
>please enact these important regulations to make sure the rest of the industry shares that burden too
But then the next minute he's saying
>don't enact that regulation, we can afford to pay but it's an undue burden on smaller internet businesses who can't afford it
At this point I can't even tell when he's doing PR and when he's legitimately advocating for his interests.

This entire article is horseshit.
I don't think anyone believes a word of what Zuckerberg says.

>And so it begins
Escalates, rather.

More censorship masking as "safety" coming on the heels of the Christchurch thing. Interesting coincedence.

This leaf gets it. No rake for you!

>Let's make the regulations tougher on paper, but remove any ability to actually enforce them

And I can't even read his spiel about customer privacy without retching. The nerve of this cunt.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Attached: 1541961592580.jpg (422x651, 61K)

chan is now an illegal cyber terrorist organization
I give it 4 to 6 years, with USA being last bastion to fall. I mean, free speech is already effectively destroyed here, we just need this last public-private partnership / public utility play to go down and that's that.

Is it blue ribbon all again?

The technocrat oligarchs don't believe goyim should have freedom or any opinions besides what the oligarchy pushes--any non-propaganda opinions and thoughts naturally being censored for being problematic, toxic wrongthink. This is why AOC is based and redpilled calling for these fucks like Google and Nosebook to be broken up.

>And I can't even read his spiel about customer privacy without retching. The nerve of this cunt.
the jew cries out in pain as he strikes you

Attached: 1553729798379.jpg (419x415, 109K)

>future generations are gonna keep telling us
>telling
No they won't. Speaking against hate speech laws is illegal.

We already have fucking rules. Has Zuck never heard of Rule 34?
Those actual rules should genuinely be followed.

rule 34 is more like a scientific law than some rule that you have to follow

>harmful content
>harmful content
>harmful content
>harmful content
>harmful content

Guess who gets to decide what's harmful?

Most of the others are not. If more people followed the rules, this would be a far better site.

>new unregulated P2P internet

The show "Silicon Valley" explores this idea by using an "unobtainium" type technology : Super Compression. The main characters in that show found a way to compress data to insane levels, without loss of information quality, at speeds good enough for real time video. Sadly, such a thing does not exist in real life and likely never will. Our real option is better speeds + cheaper storage.

Think about how decentralized P2P internet would even work in the first place. A web page as it is right now is stored on some server somewhere on the planet. When you type in the name of that website in a web browser, your browser uses a remote DNS server to translate that website name into an IP address that links your PC to the actual web page on a remote server.

In a P2P scenario, the content is hosted by others on the network. People could decide to become "Seeds" for online content by sacrificing storage space on their machines as well as upload bandwidth. People would essentially be running servers on their own computers, that host their own content as well as their favorite content from other creators. Obviously, most people would be leeches at first, so speeds would be absolutely abhorrent and the entire network prone to clogging. Some people with high end hardware could become content redistributors, only running daemons that scan other peers for new content and clones it to make it more easily available. Since anyone can become a redistributor, censorship becomes very, very hard.

The main flaw in such a system is the fact that sadly, "decentralized" networks require a main hub connecting everyone together. The internet is not wired up in a P2P way. We always communicate through "central" servers which can be controlled and censored. Until wifi antennas are strong enough to dynamically connect to other devices in an area to get the "internet", decentralized internet won't happen. The current infrastructure just wont allow it.

Attached: 1551145329050.png (957x1518, 783K)

Create skycoin node
Run skycoin manager
Install foxy proxy
Connect to real internet from over 8000 different ad hoc ip addresses for free
Be happy

Attached: 1E790957-FEF1-4C76-B877-79BEB4E8AF76.jpg (990x566, 87K)

One rule to rule them all, if you don't like something, don't click it.

>Guess who gets to decide what's harmful?
I'm gonna guess - and I'm just spitballing here - but probably someone working at a place like the SPLC with a last name along the lines of "Cohen"?

>harmful content
Now that is some fuckin' chutzpah
fortune.com/2019/01/25/facebook-kids-spend-money/

About a year ago I had time and thought I might get into a project to Make the World a Better Place, so did some research. Life (work) intervened and I never followed through, but I learned a little. My central (totally unrealized) idea was that there might be an intersection between blockchains and torrent-type technologies.
>DNS...
I actually think DNS is the most solvable problem as it's at the Application layer. This is the most mature project along those lines.
namecoin.org/
>In a P2P scenario, the content is hosted by others on the network...
Yeah, maybe you know about this
ipfs.io/
>The main flaw in such a system is the fact that sadly, "decentralized" networks require a main hub connecting everyone together. The internet is not wired up in a P2P way. We always communicate through "central" servers which can be controlled and censored...
Overall you're right; the deeper layers of the protocol stack are hard to re-engineer in a usable (backwards-portable) way.

>Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree. I’ve come to believe that we shouldn’t make so many important decisions about speech on our own. So we’re creating an independent body so people can appeal our decisions. We’re also working with governments, including French officials, on ensuring the effectiveness of content review systems.

Attached: day of the rope.jpg (320x482, 25K)

>I’ve come to believe that we shouldn’t make so many important decisions about speech on our own. So we’re creating an independent body
> make so many important decisions about speech on our own. So we’re creating an independent body
>decisions about speech on our own. So we’re creating an independent body
>on our own. So we’re creating
>our own. So we’re

Honestly it's pretty damn cool to see that other people are actively working on this type of tech, I had guessed someone probably would but I never bothered checking. I really like the namecoin thing, but the registration "cost" irks me a bit. I guess it's necessary and quite minimal since each key ( domain name ) can link to 520 bytes of data. Plenty to link to a server IP since an IPV4 address can be expressed using 4 bytes and I guess 2 extra byte for port number. But I'm just speculating here using my limited knowledge of networking ( I'm mainly a programmer and networking usually pisses me off in unforeseen ways ) so I guess that cost is necessary. Probably to prevent flooding of the network and bot trying to register keys before anyone else can do it.

The one thing about a decentralized DNS would be the fact that the CIA and FBI could definitely set up honeypots just as easily as they can run TOR exit nodes... but... honestly can it be any worse than it is currently lmao?

Attached: zucker cuck.jpg (720x1095, 90K)

>RULE #1
NO NIGGERS
>RULE #2
NO ROASTIES

Attached: 1523075552471.jpg (600x600, 33K)

>Once we understand the prevalence of harmful content, we can see which companies are improving and where we should set the baselines.

>Baselines

Attached: android.jpg (648x650, 340K)

>RULE #3
NO TRANNIES
>RULE #4 AND MOST IMPORTANT RULE
FUCK JANNIES

because it was re-written over several weeks by lawyers and PR nuspeak gurus.

>cost is necessary. Probably to prevent flooding of the network and bot trying to register keys before anyone else can do it.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that there has to be some constraint; it's pretty fundamental to all blockchains from a design standpoint. What's cool about namecoin is they've thought through compat with existing DNS and so there's a realistic path to adoption.
>The one thing about a decentralized DNS would be the fact that the CIA and FBI could definitely set up honeypots just as easily as they can run TOR exit nodes... but... honestly can it be any worse than it is currently lmao?
lasecwww.epfl.ch/keyboard/
techwalla.com/articles/how-to-use-a-cell-phone-as-a-listening-device
boingboing.net/2016/06/15/intel-x86-processors-ship-with.html

It's worse than you think.

You will notice it is mostly (((journalist/news))) sites that make you do that. I miss the days of free information and no tracking. That article may have the secret to eternal youth, but I am not clocking that shit. Fuck them. Next time archive or greentext the body.

>Washington post thinks I'll pay to read their garbage

I'd barely bother when it was free. Forbes is another one with their garbage adblock pleas. If I wanted to read half baked opinion pieces from unqualified jackasses. I'd spend time on medium.

bump.

So, it's true; Zuck IS a bottom
and Obama's been whispering
in his ear.

I suspected Zuck of
sporting a dirty sanchez recently.

It's all so predictable.

"here are some expensive problems"

He's been working on these for a year or two so he can help 'for free'

>skim version
>give the SPLC, ADL, EU etc full control over what's acceptable
>(((transparency)))
>(we're still gonna data mine & make shekels off you goy)
>fin

yep that's sad

How come telecoms aren't held accountable for "harmful content" transmitted through their services, nor do they feel the need to police their users to avoid sending such content?

Why don't we just shutdown Facebook and leave everything else the same?

Everything modern corporations do is to minimize risk and outsource liability. If they contract out content policing, then they can with a straight face declare that "they" aren't unbiased but rather it's the subcontractor. And if asked why they can't use another subcontractor, it's because no other company can operate at the same scale as the one they use. And if asked why they can't do it in-house, it's because it wouldn't be cost-effective; and they'd do an even worse job doing it in-house. And if asked why they can't oversee the subcontractor, it's because they have a policy to not interfere with the day-to-day operations of subcontractors.

All one giant game of "hot potato" where the potato is "liability".

>t. 28 yo boomer
>boomer
>not on facebook
pick one

>I don't really know, but it's clear that we do need standards regarding social media.
because why?

When did any of them hide it? It's global slavery for everyone, with the leftists cheering it on.

It's all because retarded normies keep giving these social media companies massive amounts of information about themselves willingly. Back in the olden days posting a death threat online meant fuck all because everyone was only identified by pseudonyms and avatars. But now that people have their full names, addresses and faces plastered everywhere a threat is much more serious because there's a chance it can be actually carried out. And of course these companies don't want normies to stop giving them all this info because selling it to advertisers is the cornerstone of their business model. The only reason they're concerned about "muh hate speech" isn't some sanctimonious desire to make the world a better place, but to stop people from realizing that it might be a bad idea to post every minor detail about their lives to these websites.

thing is unless they want to go full totalitarian
the speech they hate will just pop up somewhere else
either that or it will convert to violence