4 ms·

Well ultimately platforms like Facebook should be held responsible for the content they distribute in the same way that newspapers were. The safe harbor provisi

Well ultimately platforms like Facebook should be held responsible for the content they distribute in the same way that newspapers were. The safe harbor provisions should not apply to platforms that do way more than just passively host content. Google and Facebook should not be able to hide behind algorithms if the real world outcomes of these algorithms are as bad as they currently are. If they can't find a way to police their platform automatically, they will have to change something else. One thing would be to require people to provide proof of real identity, so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued and it gets much harder to create fake profiles. The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger than any positive value they provide.

newscracker 8y ago
I agree with your point about these platforms causing more harm, but I disagree with this proposition. > One thing would be to require people to provide proof of real identity, so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued and it gets much harder to create fake profiles. Firstly, real names don't really keep people from doing things that can get either themselves or others in trouble. Facebook, the platform that probably has real names for most of its users, is where so much hatred is spread by people using their real names. People use the same Facebook logins on news and other sites to comment with their real name and say hateful things. Just as most companies and people don't really care much about software security (because the consequences of breaches are not widespread and not expensive enough to take these seriously), most people don't care about legal consequences of their online behavior either. Imposing legal consequences on a platform that by itself violate its users' privacy repeatedly with no real regrets or change of heart is a slippery slope that would lead to many innocent people being processed. Secondly, "fake" names are used by many people who are vulnerable (for various reasons – could be victims of abuse or marginalized groups or people who are discriminated against or activists or dissidents). Not allowing that would cause a lot of real problems for real people (running in millions or hundreds of millions). Such names may also be used by those who value privacy. Not all of them...let me correct myself, not even most of the people who use such names are involved in spreading terror and hatred (however much politicians with self-serving interests might use this argument to try to fool the public). We seem to live in a time where people are openly proud of being bigots and using their real names to prove that on every platform, as if it's a badge of honor. That cannot be solved with identity verification or forcing real names without causing a lot more harm to many more people.
- orbifold 8y ago
  To me this not so much about the name that is displayed publicly, but about the fact that if you allow someone to publish on your platform, you should have proof of their identity, so that you can hold them legally accountable for their actions. At least in Germany hate speech, defamation, harassment, incitement to violence and so on are actually prosecuted and proof of identity would make that prosecution much easier (and yes I understand that there are different standards for speech in the US)
frabbit 8y ago
The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger than any positive value they provide. That is something for which you really need to provide some proof. In addition I do not believe that someone watching that video is in any danger of any sort. These calls for censorship are just taking advantage of an emotional situtation to impose very dangerous state control on information.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger than any positive value they provide. You want proof of this, but I think the standard should be higher - to prove that platforms like these cause greater harm than state censorship would. Censorship that has, even in the US, been used to criminalize anti-war activism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
  - frabbit 8y ago
    That's a stronger argument for sure.
- orbifold 8y ago
  Well it is undisputed that ISIS used Twitter and Facebook very effectively to recruit and spread propaganda. Whatever you think of the outcome of the last presidential election in the US and the Brexit vote it can not be a good thing for democracy to fracture opinions and reinforce beliefs by optimising for engagement in the way the Facebook and Twitter algorithm seem to do. Plus the way they work as AD platforms is also fundamentally different compared to traditional campaign advertisement, because not the same ads are shown to everyone. This is not about censorship and this kind of content is not information. I don't object to this footage being available in an archive and that it can be retrieved by anyone free of charge if they explicitly asked for it. I do not even object to it being freely available somewhere on the internet. What I object to is that Facebook and Youtube can get away with pretending they are passive conduits of information, while they in fact curate and profit directly from the content they host. They should be held to the same standards as traditional media companies, which they are in the process of displacing. A traditional media company would never have been allowed to show uncontextualized and extremely violent content such as this. If the algorithm does not catch this, that is not an excuse. They should be held accountable, as they should be held accountable for allowing ISIS to use their platforms.
frabbit 8y ago
so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued Why?
- orbifold 8y ago
  Simple: This kind of content would not be allowed to be broadcast on a tv station, you would not be able to show it in cinemas. The fact that it is accessible on Facebook and Youtube to minors and the only excuse they can offer is that the algorithm didn't catch it is simply not acceptable. They should be held to the same standards as any other media company.
  - frabbit 8y ago
    You seem to be mixing two rationales in there: 1. That TV and cinemas are not allowed to publish such material. That just pushes the question further back down the line. Why should such content not be broadcast? 2. That minors might be exposed to it. Minors should not have unfettered access to Facebook and YouTube anyway. The consquences of displacing the proper locus of control from parent to state ends up making minors out of all of us. (Note: in this case I do not believe that there is anything to be gained from watching such videos -- I may be wrong. The objection is that, as always, the ability to exercize such control in the hands of government means that other, potentially more important information becomes censorable.)

newscracker 8y ago

I agree with your point about these platforms causing more harm, but I disagree with this proposition. > One thing would be to require people to provide proof of real identity, so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued and it gets much harder to create fake profiles. Firstly, real names don't really keep people from doing things that can get either themselves or others in trouble. Facebook, the platform that probably has real names for most of its users, is where so much hatred is spread by people using their real names. People use the same Facebook logins on news and other sites to comment with their real name and say hateful things. Just as most companies and people don't really care much about software security (because the consequences of breaches are not widespread and not expensive enough to take these seriously), most people don't care about legal consequences of their online behavior either. Imposing legal consequences on a platform that by itself violate its users' privacy repeatedly with no real regrets or change of heart is a slippery slope that would lead to many innocent people being processed. Secondly, "fake" names are used by many people who are vulnerable (for various reasons – could be victims of abuse or marginalized groups or people who are discriminated against or activists or dissidents). Not allowing that would cause a lot of real problems for real people (running in millions or hundreds of millions). Such names may also be used by those who value privacy. Not all of them...let me correct myself, not even most of the people who use such names are involved in spreading terror and hatred (however much politicians with self-serving interests might use this argument to try to fool the public). We seem to live in a time where people are openly proud of being bigots and using their real names to prove that on every platform, as if it's a badge of honor. That cannot be solved with identity verification or forcing real names without causing a lot more harm to many more people.

orbifold 8y ago
To me this not so much about the name that is displayed publicly, but about the fact that if you allow someone to publish on your platform, you should have proof of their identity, so that you can hold them legally accountable for their actions. At least in Germany hate speech, defamation, harassment, incitement to violence and so on are actually prosecuted and proof of identity would make that prosecution much easier (and yes I understand that there are different standards for speech in the US)

frabbit 8y ago

The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger than any positive value they provide. That is something for which you really need to provide some proof. In addition I do not believe that someone watching that video is in any danger of any sort. These calls for censorship are just taking advantage of an emotional situtation to impose very dangerous state control on information.

deogeo 8y ago
> The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger than any positive value they provide. You want proof of this, but I think the standard should be higher - to prove that platforms like these cause greater harm than state censorship would. Censorship that has, even in the US, been used to criminalize anti-war activism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- frabbit 8y ago
  That's a stronger argument for sure.
orbifold 8y ago
Well it is undisputed that ISIS used Twitter and Facebook very effectively to recruit and spread propaganda. Whatever you think of the outcome of the last presidential election in the US and the Brexit vote it can not be a good thing for democracy to fracture opinions and reinforce beliefs by optimising for engagement in the way the Facebook and Twitter algorithm seem to do. Plus the way they work as AD platforms is also fundamentally different compared to traditional campaign advertisement, because not the same ads are shown to everyone. This is not about censorship and this kind of content is not information. I don't object to this footage being available in an archive and that it can be retrieved by anyone free of charge if they explicitly asked for it. I do not even object to it being freely available somewhere on the internet. What I object to is that Facebook and Youtube can get away with pretending they are passive conduits of information, while they in fact curate and profit directly from the content they host. They should be held to the same standards as traditional media companies, which they are in the process of displacing. A traditional media company would never have been allowed to show uncontextualized and extremely violent content such as this. If the algorithm does not catch this, that is not an excuse. They should be held accountable, as they should be held accountable for allowing ISIS to use their platforms.

frabbit 8y ago

so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued Why?

orbifold 8y ago
Simple: This kind of content would not be allowed to be broadcast on a tv station, you would not be able to show it in cinemas. The fact that it is accessible on Facebook and Youtube to minors and the only excuse they can offer is that the algorithm didn't catch it is simply not acceptable. They should be held to the same standards as any other media company.
- frabbit 8y ago
  You seem to be mixing two rationales in there: 1. That TV and cinemas are not allowed to publish such material. That just pushes the question further back down the line. Why should such content not be broadcast? 2. That minors might be exposed to it. Minors should not have unfettered access to Facebook and YouTube anyway. The consquences of displacing the proper locus of control from parent to state ends up making minors out of all of us. (Note: in this case I do not believe that there is anything to be gained from watching such videos -- I may be wrong. The objection is that, as always, the ability to exercize such control in the hands of government means that other, potentially more important information becomes censorable.)