3 ms·

The risk with this is that eventually it will erode Facebook's legal argument that it isn't responsible for the content that its users post to the network or sh

The risk with this is that eventually it will erode Facebook's legal argument that it isn't responsible for the content that its users post to the network or share through Facebook Groups. As it is there are tens of thousands or even more Facebook groups dedicated to some kind of either illegal, rights-infringing, or grey market activity in the US alone. The more that Facebook holds itself responsible for moderating and controlling that content, the less weight that Facebook's arguments that it is just a dumb pipe will hold. This has been going under-remarked relating to this cluster of issues. Strongly doubt that FB or any similar company will successfully navigate this issue in the long run.

pitaj 8y ago
No company should be liable for the content users post, regardless of moderation policies.
telltruth 8y ago
They definitely screwed up how they handled the crises. Zuck & Sandberg's apology tour has made them responsible for any future liability or slip ups which are inevitable given the size of operation. There were 4 separate issues 1. People posting fake news 2. Recommandation serving fake news due to similarity 3. Apps stealing data 4. Advertisers able to target vulnerable audience They should have kept these issue absolutely separate and taking responsibility for all but #1. They should have stayed very firm on not accepting blame for what people decide to share on their platform. Instead they ended up accepting blame for everything and now they are screwed.
- j-c-hewitt 8y ago
  Right. This is a giant multi-billion dollar target that is increasingly portrayed as a machine for the mass production of liability. People seem to be under the impression that internet companies putting themselves under the cloak of free speech came purely from 'idealism.' The real reason is to avoid being Napster'd. How can FB turn around to a copyright holder and say "Ha ha, this content is totally not something we take responsibility for -- you should take it up with the user" if it is actively policing content on the platform with an army of staffers and actively shaping what people can and cannot write on the platform? That looks a lot more like editorial behavior than 'moderation'. It's different when it's just automated systems that are dinging people for potentially posting copyrighted material or a snuff film. The system doesn't exercise human judgment on an active, day-to-day basis. To the extent that services like FB took a hands-off approach had much more to do with avoiding liability than any iron moral commitment to allow people to share flat earth and lizardman related content.

pitaj 8y ago

No company should be liable for the content users post, regardless of moderation policies.

telltruth 8y ago

They definitely screwed up how they handled the crises. Zuck & Sandberg's apology tour has made them responsible for any future liability or slip ups which are inevitable given the size of operation. There were 4 separate issues 1. People posting fake news 2. Recommandation serving fake news due to similarity 3. Apps stealing data 4. Advertisers able to target vulnerable audience They should have kept these issue absolutely separate and taking responsibility for all but #1. They should have stayed very firm on not accepting blame for what people decide to share on their platform. Instead they ended up accepting blame for everything and now they are screwed.

j-c-hewitt 8y ago
Right. This is a giant multi-billion dollar target that is increasingly portrayed as a machine for the mass production of liability. People seem to be under the impression that internet companies putting themselves under the cloak of free speech came purely from 'idealism.' The real reason is to avoid being Napster'd. How can FB turn around to a copyright holder and say "Ha ha, this content is totally not something we take responsibility for -- you should take it up with the user" if it is actively policing content on the platform with an army of staffers and actively shaping what people can and cannot write on the platform? That looks a lot more like editorial behavior than 'moderation'. It's different when it's just automated systems that are dinging people for potentially posting copyrighted material or a snuff film. The system doesn't exercise human judgment on an active, day-to-day basis. To the extent that services like FB took a hands-off approach had much more to do with avoiding liability than any iron moral commitment to allow people to share flat earth and lizardman related content.