7 ms·

Maybe Facebook just let all videos be posted, except when it’s illegal (the video, not the act). Pretty much the only thing that would fall in that category wou

by mruts 8y ago

Maybe Facebook just let all videos be posted, except when it’s illegal (the video, not the act). Pretty much the only thing that would fall in that category would be child porn. I’m not sure I really understand why big companies feel it’s their job to censor the world. Just let the floodgates open: allow violence, allow porn, allow whatever else. Who cares? And maybe this might actually good for people to see. I feel like we are leaving in this outrage culture that wants to censor everything. It’s not healthy for individuals or society.

duxup 8y ago
Including allowing the very first thing mentioned in the article?
- ahakki 8y ago
  Depends if very first thing mentioned, a graphic video of a murder, is illegal in the relevant jurisdiction. The legal status of snuff films is pretty complicated.
- thepangolino 8y ago
  Well, why not? It won't put it under your nose unless you actively search for it.
  - duxup 8y ago
    "It won't put it under your nose unless you actively search for it." That's not how social networks work.
- cf141q5325 8y ago
  The alternative is paying people to moderate it all day every day. With the mental damage this causes to people who are desperate for a job. Just blocking it yourself seems like a better solution. You dont have to be fair in what you block yourself and (surprise surprise) you dont need to watch it in the first place.
  - duxup 8y ago
    "Just blocking it yourself seems like a better solution. You dont have to be fair in what you block yourself and (surprise surprise) you dont need to watch it in the first place." How does that work if nobody watches it, how do you know what to block?
    - cf141q5325 8y ago
      Close a video if its a shaky video of some guys with machetes. You dont have to figure out how it ends. You only have to watch it through if you have to make sure its actually gore. Which an individual different to an employee doesnt have to. Or simply automatically collect reports and if a high enough percentage of views vs reports comes in it put it nsfw.
      - duxup 8y ago
        "You only have to watch it through if you have to make sure its actually gore." I'm not sure that is any different than what the article describes.
        cf498 8y ago
        >She knows that section 13 of the Facebook community standards prohibits videos that depict the murder of one or more people >It’s a place where employees can be fired for making just a few errors a week As I understand it, an employee has to make sure its extremely likely that it is a murder. She is told she can pause it by the psychiatrist, not to close it. You as an individual dont need to find out. Just close it immediately if you assume its gore.
        duxup 8y ago
        I'm not sure that watching some of it, is more desirable than watching all of it long term. They're just on to the next horrible video anyway.
skh 8y ago
You think child porn is pretty much the only thing that is illegal to video? I think you should do further research on this issue. There’s a lot more than just child porn that is illegal to video. All societies have regulated speech. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe this should be so. A desire to censor some things should not be spoken of as a desire to censor everything. Such hyperbole undermines your position. With Facebook and Google speech is easier to disseminate. It’s also way easier to target said speech. No one can be vigilant at all times in terms of checking sources and accuracy of what we see/read/watch. People are easily duped. People are easily led to believe things that are obviously false. The anti-vax movement is an example of this. We have entered an information age unlike any other in the past. This ability to sway, target, and reach so many at scale for so little cost has implications that may cause society to re-examine the nature of free speech. If Facebook let’s the floodgates open as you say then this re-examination will come much sooner and likely be the result of outrage and thus end up hurting Facebook in the long run. Facebook would like to prevent this from happening. Hence they take steps toward mitigating the public perception of Facebook enabling bad actors.
- ancorevard 8y ago
  "All societies have regulated speech." Unfortunately, yes in various ways. But the devil is in the details. Who decides what specific ideas should be outlawed?
  - skh 8y ago
    Well, society decides. Sometimes societies have a framework for deciding the grey area between individual rights and the right of society to regulate (in the form of government). That’s what political and legal battles are all about. There is nothing unfortunate about this though. What is good at an individual level may not be good at a societal level.
  - untog 8y ago
    > Who decides what specific ideas should be outlawed? The politicians who write laws. Lawmakers decide what should be outlawed. I'm not sure why people paint this process as complicated. We live in a society, that society decides what is acceptable and what is not. You are welcome to disagree with the conclusion, but it's not some shrouded mystery how we make the choices we do.
sandworm101 8y ago
Lol. In the real world, "child porn" is just about the most difficult thing to define and enforce. Which country's law? The most restrictive? (No bare skin on anyone) Or the most open? (Nude children ok.) What if the person looks underage but isnt? Or is underage but looks older? How do we handle art? What about existing content (hollywood)? What about political expression (naturists/nudists)? For the people that actually deal with these decisions "child porn" is a useless term. That term is thown around as if everyone knows what it means. In reality there us no real agreement.
- mruts 8y ago
  I figured that if I didn’t mention child porn I would be downvoted. But it looks like that’s happening anyway. If I had things my way, no piece of information would be illegal. Child porn, nuclear weapon plans, whatever, I don’t care, it should all be legal. But I accept that it’s a fringe position, though a completely tenable and consistent one. It’s all information and I think it’s ridiculous to try and censor something that only exists in the abstract. Moreover, once you start censoring you will never be able to stop. Even though I’m sure people will do bad things with information, I believe that history has shown that the good will outweigh the bad.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    It is consistent but not tenable. And, as history shows, censorship waxes and wanes in every society; you certainly can stop censoring things that once were censored.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >though a completely tenable I don't think everyone having access to nuclear plans and biological weapons is tenable. Those things aren't abstract.
  - skh 8y ago
    Your position is consistent but for most people not tenable. It’s hard to claim that the “information” as you put it is abstract when it exists in video format that can be watched. When you make statement like Moreover, once you start censoring you will never be able to stop. Your position become less credible. You need to argue that the censoring that is currently being proposed or being done is indeed bad for society. Or that we’d be better off without said censoring. Engaging in slippery slope style reasoning is not helpful.
Shish2k 8y ago
> I’m not sure I really understand why big companies feel it’s there job to censor the world Because that's what the users and the customers both want. Facebook is popular and profitable BECAUSE it provides a mostly-safe (compared to eg 4chan) place to communicate, not despite that.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  This is exactly right, and is the correct answer whenever the free speech argument comes up. If people see offensive content on Facebook, but not on a competitor, then both the users and the advertisers are going to abandon Facebook for the competitor. Every company tries to give their customers what they think the customers want.
thedz 8y ago
Ignoring for a second what should or shouldn't be allowed... now the moderators are just subjected to constant child porn or potential child porn, which, let's be honest, is still essentially the same issue re: their mental health.
- cf498 8y ago
  Child porn is a criminal offense, something the police gets involved in and has repercussions for the person who posted it and the people who viewed it. Ban people who abuse the report button and you can stem the job with just a few people, who like the police can get the appropriate environment and training. Plus if I remember correctly Microsoft already having some database to automatically match known images and videos. The number of cases left should be minimal in comparison to TOS violations.

by mruts 8y ago

duxup 8y ago

Including allowing the very first thing mentioned in the article?

ahakki 8y ago
Depends if very first thing mentioned, a graphic video of a murder, is illegal in the relevant jurisdiction. The legal status of snuff films is pretty complicated.
thepangolino 8y ago
Well, why not? It won't put it under your nose unless you actively search for it.
- duxup 8y ago
  "It won't put it under your nose unless you actively search for it." That's not how social networks work.
cf141q5325 8y ago
The alternative is paying people to moderate it all day every day. With the mental damage this causes to people who are desperate for a job. Just blocking it yourself seems like a better solution. You dont have to be fair in what you block yourself and (surprise surprise) you dont need to watch it in the first place.
- duxup 8y ago
  "Just blocking it yourself seems like a better solution. You dont have to be fair in what you block yourself and (surprise surprise) you dont need to watch it in the first place." How does that work if nobody watches it, how do you know what to block?
  - cf141q5325 8y ago
    Close a video if its a shaky video of some guys with machetes. You dont have to figure out how it ends. You only have to watch it through if you have to make sure its actually gore. Which an individual different to an employee doesnt have to. Or simply automatically collect reports and if a high enough percentage of views vs reports comes in it put it nsfw.
    - duxup 8y ago
      "You only have to watch it through if you have to make sure its actually gore." I'm not sure that is any different than what the article describes.
      - cf498 8y ago
        >She knows that section 13 of the Facebook community standards prohibits videos that depict the murder of one or more people >It’s a place where employees can be fired for making just a few errors a week As I understand it, an employee has to make sure its extremely likely that it is a murder. She is told she can pause it by the psychiatrist, not to close it. You as an individual dont need to find out. Just close it immediately if you assume its gore.
        duxup 8y ago
        I'm not sure that watching some of it, is more desirable than watching all of it long term. They're just on to the next horrible video anyway.

skh 8y ago

You think child porn is pretty much the only thing that is illegal to video? I think you should do further research on this issue. There’s a lot more than just child porn that is illegal to video. All societies have regulated speech. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe this should be so. A desire to censor some things should not be spoken of as a desire to censor everything. Such hyperbole undermines your position. With Facebook and Google speech is easier to disseminate. It’s also way easier to target said speech. No one can be vigilant at all times in terms of checking sources and accuracy of what we see/read/watch. People are easily duped. People are easily led to believe things that are obviously false. The anti-vax movement is an example of this. We have entered an information age unlike any other in the past. This ability to sway, target, and reach so many at scale for so little cost has implications that may cause society to re-examine the nature of free speech. If Facebook let’s the floodgates open as you say then this re-examination will come much sooner and likely be the result of outrage and thus end up hurting Facebook in the long run. Facebook would like to prevent this from happening. Hence they take steps toward mitigating the public perception of Facebook enabling bad actors.

ancorevard 8y ago
"All societies have regulated speech." Unfortunately, yes in various ways. But the devil is in the details. Who decides what specific ideas should be outlawed?
- skh 8y ago
  Well, society decides. Sometimes societies have a framework for deciding the grey area between individual rights and the right of society to regulate (in the form of government). That’s what political and legal battles are all about. There is nothing unfortunate about this though. What is good at an individual level may not be good at a societal level.
- untog 8y ago
  > Who decides what specific ideas should be outlawed? The politicians who write laws. Lawmakers decide what should be outlawed. I'm not sure why people paint this process as complicated. We live in a society, that society decides what is acceptable and what is not. You are welcome to disagree with the conclusion, but it's not some shrouded mystery how we make the choices we do.

sandworm101 8y ago

Lol. In the real world, "child porn" is just about the most difficult thing to define and enforce. Which country's law? The most restrictive? (No bare skin on anyone) Or the most open? (Nude children ok.) What if the person looks underage but isnt? Or is underage but looks older? How do we handle art? What about existing content (hollywood)? What about political expression (naturists/nudists)? For the people that actually deal with these decisions "child porn" is a useless term. That term is thown around as if everyone knows what it means. In reality there us no real agreement.

mruts 8y ago
I figured that if I didn’t mention child porn I would be downvoted. But it looks like that’s happening anyway. If I had things my way, no piece of information would be illegal. Child porn, nuclear weapon plans, whatever, I don’t care, it should all be legal. But I accept that it’s a fringe position, though a completely tenable and consistent one. It’s all information and I think it’s ridiculous to try and censor something that only exists in the abstract. Moreover, once you start censoring you will never be able to stop. Even though I’m sure people will do bad things with information, I believe that history has shown that the good will outweigh the bad.
- Frondo 8y ago
  It is consistent but not tenable. And, as history shows, censorship waxes and wanes in every society; you certainly can stop censoring things that once were censored.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >though a completely tenable I don't think everyone having access to nuclear plans and biological weapons is tenable. Those things aren't abstract.
- skh 8y ago
  Your position is consistent but for most people not tenable. It’s hard to claim that the “information” as you put it is abstract when it exists in video format that can be watched. When you make statement like Moreover, once you start censoring you will never be able to stop. Your position become less credible. You need to argue that the censoring that is currently being proposed or being done is indeed bad for society. Or that we’d be better off without said censoring. Engaging in slippery slope style reasoning is not helpful.

Shish2k 8y ago

> I’m not sure I really understand why big companies feel it’s there job to censor the world Because that's what the users and the customers both want. Facebook is popular and profitable BECAUSE it provides a mostly-safe (compared to eg 4chan) place to communicate, not despite that.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
This is exactly right, and is the correct answer whenever the free speech argument comes up. If people see offensive content on Facebook, but not on a competitor, then both the users and the advertisers are going to abandon Facebook for the competitor. Every company tries to give their customers what they think the customers want.

thedz 8y ago

Ignoring for a second what should or shouldn't be allowed... now the moderators are just subjected to constant child porn or potential child porn, which, let's be honest, is still essentially the same issue re: their mental health.

cf498 8y ago
Child porn is a criminal offense, something the police gets involved in and has repercussions for the person who posted it and the people who viewed it. Ban people who abuse the report button and you can stem the job with just a few people, who like the police can get the appropriate environment and training. Plus if I remember correctly Microsoft already having some database to automatically match known images and videos. The number of cases left should be minimal in comparison to TOS violations.