2 ms·
Calling Facebook a "site with user submitted content" is not incorrect but to make it a bit more accurate is to add that FB makes massive amount of money from t
by sorokod 8y ago
Calling Facebook a "site with user submitted content" is not incorrect but to make it a bit more accurate is to add that FB makes massive amount of money from the site with user submitted content (you may want to ponder how exactly Sudanese users are monetized).
With this in mind it looks like the occasional slave auction is just an unfortunate consequence of the scale and ambition of the enterprise.
- skissane 8y agoYes, they make a lot of money. But, I'm pretty sure they don't make a lot of money from all languages equally. According to Ethnologue, there are 401 languages with over 1 million speakers, and 1370 with over 100,000. Now, can Facebook justify retaining moderation teams with skills in 401 different languages, even 1370 different languages, when most of those languages probably make very little advertising revenue, not enough to pay for the required moderation? Should Facebook be forced to provide moderation services, at a loss, for lesser used languages? Or, should they ban the use of those languages, where advertising revenue is insufficient to pay for moderation? Or allow them on the platform unmoderated, at the risk that their speakers might get away with saying or doing some horrible things? I don't think Facebook should be forced to provide moderation services for languages with little or no revenue, and I think allowing them to be used unmoderated is the lesser evil than banning them.
- sorokod 8y agoNobody forced FB to run a business that allows a slave auction on their platform. How to make it impossible is not my problem - it should be their problem.