13 ms·
Could someone ELI5 why FB is in the business of policing any non-illegal speech at all? Political, partisan, foreign-made, domestic-made, poor taste humor, meme
by weiming 8y ago
Could someone ELI5 why FB is in the business of policing any non-illegal speech at all? Political, partisan, foreign-made, domestic-made, poor taste humor, memes, etc. -- why not just keep all of it? It seems like a slippery slope if they turn to active moderation, and they have everything to lose by selectively choosing one or other side of some debate.
- machiavelli1024 8y agoI think because the Russians and Trump. Some people also mention white supremacists and other toxic people.
- caust1c 8y agoBecause facebook recognizes how powerful a tool the site is to fuel hate and they don't want to destroy society.
- maccam94 8y agoFacebook's brand is based on connecting real people. Fake trolls pollute their platform and tarnish their brand.
- empressplay 8y agoI imagine that soon any co-ordinated effort at political organisation is going to require you to openly identify as a legally registered entity, e.g. a PAC or association. But what really set Facebook off in this case was the organisation of an event that could lead to physical violence. I think they're going to start clamping down hard on these, not just suspicious ones but likely in general.
- stale2002 8y agoThere was a tipping point out of nowhere that caused everyone to be deathly afraid of comments in the internet once they realized that evil Foreigners were ALSO making comments on the internet.
- notafraudster 8y agoSpam isn't (generally) illegal, and yet virtually everyone would argue all platforms should moderate spam because to not do so massively degrades the service quality for everyone. I mention this because I think content moderation, as a debate, should not be framed as whether or not to do it at all -- but rather as a recognition that deciding to moderate a particular class of content carries a cost-benefit tradeoff. It may ultimately be the case that we decide that a certain class of content is not worth moderating, because when doing so the costs outstrip the benefits, but let's keep that as a pragmatic discussion rather than a principled one about "all" speech. Your instinct might be to respond with "of course, spam should be moderated, but besides that..." but I think the knowledge that there could be some series of enumerated exceptions suggests we should stop pretending they're exceptions at all.
- wvenable 8y ago> Political, partisan, foreign-made, domestic-made, poor taste humor, memes, etc. -- why not just keep all of it? Because people don't like to participate in a platform that has gone to crap. It's happened on many sites/forums in the past. If you don't weed, you won't have much of a garden.
- skate22 8y agoMy news feed is mostly memes by choice lol, i wouldnt say it's gone to crap
- Karunamon 8y agoGive people the tools to opt in and out of whatever filters they please. Even turn it on by default if you want. This is one of the few things Twitter has done right - you can simply turn off their "quality filter" if you don't believe that they have your best interests at heart when deciding what shows and what doesn't. (Where Twitter does wrong is a number of other opaque filters that cannot be disabled) Reddit has a simplistic version of this. By default, you will not see anything that has a score of -1 or below.
- aylmao 8y agoBecause Americans are scared. They had one election with traces of foreign interference (something the US does a lot of, by the way [1]) and a candidate most people didn't vote for won-- because for some reason that's something that can happen in their democracy. Media outlets noticed there is a lot of spam and misinformation happening on social media, and saw not only great headlines to garner clicks, but also an opportunity to make people distrust smaller sources of information in favor or big, established brands and companies. They drove subscriptions up by creating an aura of mistrust and impending doom [2][3] after historical decline due to the internet. Did the inflammatory posts actually affect the election? It's unclear, and if so it was likely less so than the coverage of traditional media outlets [4]. That being said, there are inflammatory parties on the internet, and since Americans now seem to think the future of their country depends on removing them, Facebook needs to abide for the sake of PR. Note: this actually costs Facebook time and money (they are hiring a lot of people for this effect [5]) but they've been bashed so much on the media they need all the PR stunts they can get. It is a slippery slope, I agree. But it's the one people in the US want to follow, again, because they are scared. Fearful people take slippery slopes and focus on apparent short-term solutions instead of long-term objectives (fixing the American political system so the population actually votes for who is president would be a good place to start). There's that quote from the Star Wars trilogy (the best line in the prequels, IMO): "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." This comes to mind here. People will willfully act against their interests out of fear. [1]: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/americas-long-history-of-meddling-in-other-countries-elections https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/americas-long-histor... [2]: https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/media/nytimes-subscription-rise/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/media/nytimes-subscription-... [3]: https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/washington-post-digital-subscriptions/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/washington-post-digit... [4]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-in... [5]: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/31/facebook-senate-testimony-doubling-security-group-to-20000-in-2018.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/31/facebook-senate-testimony-do...
- dibstern 8y agoYour comment reeks of hubris, hatred for Americans, and self-delusion. You question the value of ridding the world of bad-actors. Why? Why would this be a bad thing, if one company ensures it cannot accidentally allow foreign powers to interfere in elections? You have one ‘source’ that claims, without evidence, that the impact of Russian meddling was minimal. To be so confident of your pretty big claim, with only that source to go on, that’s pretty crazy. You also make it out like all of the US is actively working on this. Ridiculous. People all around their country are attempting to strengthen their democracy, to find ways to make it better. That you think this is a bad thing... it makes it obvious how much you hate America. Deny it all you want. And I’m not even an American.
- drharby 8y agoBecause fb is THE psyops battlefield, and multiple state actors on many sides are tangibly involved. Why would mark zuckerberg find himself talking to captains and colonels at the naval warfare school? Its like an influencing campaign in civ :)
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> Why would mark zuckerberg find himself talking to captains and colonels at the naval warfare school? Why wouldn't he? I would love to talk to these people given opportunity - not because I'm involved in anything connected to military, but out of simple curiosity and interest in strategy and tactics...
- shostack 8y agoI'm surprised Reddit isn't mentioned more often. I'd argue it is also one of the primary social battlefields. The silence and inaction from admins and mods has been stunningly absent despite the blatant bot and troll activity there.
- mahranch 8y agoReddit is the 4th/5th largest website in the U.S according to Alexa (keeps swapping between 4th and 5th). Source: https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US Any agency, whether it's a nation state/government, business or political party, would be laughably bad at their job to ignore a website that size, one with the perfect format to spew their propaganda. It even has little score counters so you can keep track of what works, and what doesn't! How handy! Reddit has been a target for manipulation for years now. I've been a moderator of some of their largest subreddits and the evidence was so overwhelming you can't help but become angry, then apathetic when told by the admins that they wouldn't do anything. "As long as they don't break the global rules, they're free to be here" I saw a moderator get told that by an admin ~3 years ago (few months before the Ellen Pao debacle). Spewing propaganda is fine on reddit, so long as you don't manipulate the votes. I take issue with the fact that BOTH are inorganic manipulation of reddit. Both should be dealt with swiftly, without prejudiced and without mercy.
- davidw 8y agoA room full of people screaming incoherently is a room that most sane people quickly leave.
- godshatter 8y agoInstead of banning accounts, I would rather that they put more tools into the hands of the users. Let their users flag accounts in different ways, and give them tools to use that will let them filter out accounts from their feed based on those flags.
- TheBeardKing 8y agoAren't there already filters to block the user from seeing any more posts from a certain source, see less posts from that friend, unfollow friend completely, etc? I guess they could refine it into categories like politics, but that'd hit a lot of gray areas. Their strategy recently has been to de-emphasize links altogether, but that does nothing about the crappy shared posts from spam pages.
- evgen 8y agoThis idea is quite popular among this crowd and is based on the erroneous assumption that 1) people are sufficiently educated on the subject to make anything more than a casual pass at filtering, 2) care enough to spend the mental energy needed to use these filtering tools rather than just checking out of the platform, and 3) such tools will not soon become the problem. There is a long and unpleasant history to show that this idea is never going to work. If Facebook wants to survive as a platform they will need to undertake the unpleasant task of setting a baseline, enforcing it, and telling people who disagree to go find another platform. To be honest, I don't think Facebook as a company or its employees as individuals have the courage to save it -- it is too easy to keep cashing the checks while Rome burns...
- stale2002 8y agoThere is a extremely successful version of this model, actually. It's called Reddit. On Reddit, you give 1 person dictatorial power over a given community, and allow anyone to make their OWN community if they don't like the rules. There are a multitude of examples of people not liking the rules, and forking off to form their own community. It is the best way IMO, to give people freedom of choice to live with the rules that they prefer.
- bachmeier 8y ago> Could someone ELI5 why FB is in the business of policing any non-illegal speech at all? If Facebook's brand is associated with garbage, and it has already gone quite far in that direction, Facebook won't exist for very long. The only reason to use Facebook is that others use Facebook. It's a matter of survival for them.
- bepotts 8y agoFacebook should definitely remove stuff from foreign actors trying to impact some political outcome (like Russia messing with Brexit or American elections) and any promotion by groups to incite violence (like gangs, ISIS propaganda, hate groups, etc.). But political and partisan stuff is a slippery slope. For example, I wouldn't touch Alex Jones stuff. Maybe derank his content and posts promoting his content, but banning him all together is a step too far. Like it or not, were in a weird place in American politics where conspiracy theorists not only have influence in political parties, but also get elected President. Facebook banning figures, and to be more specific, conservative figures when conservatives already believe Facebook is biased against them is just a bad idea. If Congress wants Facebook and Twitter to silence speech, they need to pass a law. That law needs to be clear about what is inbounds and what is out. If not, Facebook is opening itself up to legal challenges from the Right and is only going to erode trust from half the population. We are in a weird place in American politics and Facebook should tread lightly. Also, Congress should do it's damn job and not rely on companies to use discretion. If Facebook bans something that the left deems is biased against them then Facebook, once again, will be in big trouble with half the country.
- astrodust 8y agoDelete. Alex. Jones. From. Everything. He crossed the line from "free speech" into "actively instigating violence" a long time ago.
- nasredin 8y agoOne has to give Alex Jones one thing... Mr Jones is the one subject that every single field can study. From business to political science to marketting to psychology and perhaps psychiatry and journalism. He is a fountain, sometines a geyser, of never ending supply of data to further advance the sciences.
- vkou 8y agoBecause they've always been in the business of policing non-illegal speech. They want an advertiser-friendly image, because its advertisers who pay the bills.
- themagician 8y agoIt's not a slippery slope at all. It's Facebook. The slope is made of rough grit sandpaper. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube et al. should go on outright banfests. There is no free speech argument to be made. None. Zero. These aren't government enterprises and getting banned from these sites for any reason really shouldn't matter. Facebook already enforces some weird moral code where a nipple gets you instantly banned, but when it comes to politics somehow it's a "free speech" argument and they don't want to take sides. It's 100% bullshit. These companies need to grow up. If people don't like that they have been banned then they can start an alternative site or, you know, use the decentralized Internet the way it was designed. If we were talking about ICANN policing domains that would be a legitimate "slippery slope", but we aren't. The only thing they really stand to lose by banning blatant conspiracy theory whack jobs and divisive hate speech is some ad revenue associated with that stuff, most of which is predatory anyway. Nipples? Not acceptable, banned. Fair use of media owned by a large company? Copyright strike, banned. Divisive conspiracy theories that promote hate? Free Speech! Selling literally snake oil? Free speech! Americans LOVE to pretend like they are morally superior, but the moral code and values built into todays companies are completely bonkers. Free speech is constantly invoked when it doesn't even apply, and it's applied so inconsistently it doesn't even make sense. Mark Zuckerberg should travel to Nidavellir and have the Dwarf King Eitri forge him a ban hammer the likes of which the Facebook has never seen.
- laretluval 8y agoSo if they go that way, and you get banned, would you be ok with that?
- untog 8y agoThe implication in that is that the OP would be engaging in behaviour that warrants a ban, so at a guess their answer would be "my opinion wouldn't matter", which can probably be distilled down to "yes".
- themagician 8y agoYes. ༼ つ ◕ ◕ ༽つ GIVE BAN ༼ つ ◕ ◕ ༽つ These are free websites on the internet that cater to the lowest common denominator of media we have today. Being banned is not a big deal.
- solaarphunk 8y agoThey should police, because they are already in the business of censorship and amplification via the newsfeed product. This entire problem would be minimized if newsfeed didn't rank posts due to engagement. Its easier for trolls to get engagement on polarizing and harmful posts, because they generate stronger user emotions. IMO, this criticism of "policing" is a bullshit straw man argument, which neglects how the product actually works, and why we even have this problem in the first place.
- yifanl 8y agoAs far as I'm concerned, Facebook is not a content aggregator, it's a content publisher. It directly profits off of the users, and by extension the comments and pictures and whatever else the users post. As such, they are responsible for this product. I don't see it as censoring or policing so much as quality control.
- snowwrestler 8y agoA website that allows all legal content would be like 4chan. Ask moot how many advertising dollars 4chan attracted. That's why Facebook is in the "business" of policing content.
- raz32dust 8y agoFB is not in fact banning any speech here. You can say what you want as long as you are speaking on your own behalf, using your true identity. What is problematic here is that people have created false identities and use them to influence public opinion. That is a clear ToS violation. Quote: "It’s clear that whoever set up these accounts went to much greater lengths to obscure their true identities than the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) has in the past. "
- barumrho 8y agoEven if Facebook decided not to police, they cannot be neutral. They have to decide what to show to users. Now, they use algorithms to do this, but that doesn't relieve them of their responsibility.
- pjc50 8y agoFacebook without active moderation would rapidly become unusable under all the spam and nudity.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- taurath 8y agoBecause any public forum needs some form of moderation, or you end up with 4chan, where it’s just bad actors trying to fuck with everyone else. The best places for discussion in the BBS and web forum days were the ones that were heavily moderated.
- StanislavPetrov 8y agoBecause controlling the narrative is how powerful interests have maintained control of our society for a century. For the first time (due to the internet) there is no centralized control of information. The failure of the ruling class to anoint their chosen candidate Hillary Clinton, despite the backing of every institution and media outlets (to an ignorant, boorish carnival barker, no less) was a wake up call for the ruling elite. They are desperate to regain control of the information flow, which is resulted in coordinated campaign to silence and/or marginalize voices that threaten their information monopoly. The Russiagate nonsense, the "hate speech" nonsense, the nonsense about "weaponizing the First Amendment" all comes from the same crowd of authoritarians whose goal is to stifle free speech and end the free and open exchange of information.