11 ms·

I take the viewing metrics they provided with a huge grain of salt, given their history for playing fast and loose with the truth. Maybe I'm just down on Faceb

I take the viewing metrics they provided with a huge grain of salt, given their history for playing fast and loose with the truth. Maybe I'm just down on Facebook, but this deflects pretty hard on the main point of this whole terrible story: given a free platform to broadcast live video, there's just no feasible way (at the moment) to prevent someone from using said platform to broadcast horrific events. Content moderation has always, always, always been an afterthought, and these major platforms don't really seem to have an interest in truly solving this problem. Massive teams of poorly-paid contractors supplemented with ML tools seems like an overly optimistic solution to a much harder problem.

Diederich 8y ago
I don't mean to sound harsh by asking this question, truly. What do you suggest at this point?
- save_ferris 8y ago
  I deeply question the value of FB's existence in its current form for many reasons, but given its size and influence, I'm not so naive to think that it's going away anytime soon. I chose years ago to stop using Facebook and encouraging others to do the same. I truly believe the absolute best thing FB could do for society would be to dissolve, but that's not realistic.
  - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
    So... you propose nothing, then? Or at least, you didn't really answer the question that was asked. What would you suggest as a solution to the problems stated? These problems are larger than just Facebook.
    - save_ferris 8y ago
      Choosing not support or engage with such an ethically compromised platform is a solution. Why do we carry around this mentality that everything can just be fixed? When did the idea of "maybe X thing shouldn't exist in our society" become such a foreign idea? Facebook is only valuable because people use it.
      - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
        If Facebook was Thanos snapped out of existence right now, the overarching problem would still exist. It's not constrained to the borders of a single Mountain View, CA company. How would you address the problem itself, rather than a single instance of it?
      - ng12 8y ago
        Facebook is a microcosm of the internet as a whole. The "X thing" here is a global decentralized network, not social media.
    - Diederich 8y ago
      Seems asked and answered to me: > What do you suggest at this point? > I truly believe the absolute best thing FB could do for society would be to dissolve, but that's not realistic. I take 'not realistic' to mean that it's not going to happen, which is accurate.
      - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
        "Not using Facebook" doesn't solve address the problem which exists outside of Facebook, so no, it wasn't answered.
        Diederich 8y ago
        Well, I asked the question, and I consider his response an answer. Yes, these problems exists outside of FB. Yes, I'm sure the other poster is acknowledging very little if anything would change if FB disappeared, over a nominal time horizon. I personally think FB and the other social media sites are doing more good than harm, so I disagree with the other poster's overall assessment. One way or another, there are no clear or known paths that are reasonably possible away from this kind of situation.
        CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
        > Well, I asked the question, and I consider his response an answer. It's non sequitur at best, but technically an answer, sure. I'm more interested in something tangible and (hopefully) universifiable than "delete Facebook".
        Diederich 8y ago
        > I'm more interested in something tangible and (hopefully) universifiable than "delete Facebook". I am as well, believe me. I just don't think any are available, at least at the moment.
  - basch 8y ago
    Do you feel the same way about telephones and web browsers. Because telephone companies cant pre-censor conversation...they dont have value. Because web browsers dont block objectionable content from reaching other peoples comp...they dont have value. I find it absurd to say that facebook has no value to people because it cant screen everything for worth before its posted. That said, sure why does something being posted have to be instantly visible without first meeting some criteria. What's wrong with a small buffer?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
420codebro 8y ago
I think you're spot on regarding the free/open-access platform inviting this kind of thing. I don't know if there really is a feasible solution - maybe a delayed-broadcast setup where a human moderator reviews each feed/view? Also maybe automatically have a human attach and watch feeds that are spontaneously getting popular without a clear reason, etc. I've read some folks floating the thought of requiring a Gov ID to livestream, etc. I am not in favor of this. How would that stop a psycho like this? He wouldn't care if you knew his real id. He would just pretend to be docile / normal until the second he starts broadcasting his horrible intentions.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > I don't know if there really is a feasible solution - maybe a delayed-broadcast setup where a human moderator reviews each feed/view? Also maybe automatically have a human attach and watch feeds that are spontaneously getting popular without a clear reason, etc. I think those are very good ideas for mitigating this kind of problem. Facebook (and other internet companies) have basically built sharing platforms with no breaks, and that opens them up to exploitation by people like this mass shooter. I think the only effective solutions will involve retrofitting breaks and proactively inserting human moderators into the loop. There's literally no good reason that something should be able to go viral globally within hours of creation, not even disconnected natural disaster reports.
  - ng12 8y ago
    > There's literally no good reason that something should be able to go viral globally within hours of creation, not even disconnected natural disaster reports. The article states the stream had ~200 views total. That's not anywhere close to viral.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > The article states the stream had ~200 views total. That's not anywhere close to viral. No. According to the article the original video actually had ~4,000 views in the unspecified amount of time before it was removed. Only ~200 people watched it live. But you missed my point: the current design is setup to present as few obstacles as possible to something going viral, which means it's easy for something to spread so quickly it's impossible to moderate. The solution is to add obstacles on the path to virality to prevent things from going viral. These could include things like post-visibility delays that could trigger even before the objectionable content is even close to viral (and would similarly slow down the spread of mutated reposts).
d1zzy 8y ago
Before everyone brings their torch and pitchfork, do we know how much harm is being done on open sharing platforms vs the value they bring to society? I see people quickly jumping on the "stop the internet open sharing platforms" bandwagon when events like these happen, because the platform may be associated with the current "cultural villain" but just as we don't ban knives when they are used to murder people and are being produced by despicable companies I don't think we should ban the possibility of having open sharing platforms until we have determined they do more bad than good. Food for thought: in administrative decisions on improving car infrastructure/safety of intersections there is an actual value assigned human life. If the cost to build the improvements is less than the human life valuation of the lives that would be saved by the improvements then the project is not done. It's terrible to think of human lives as numbers but it is a requirement to do so for deciding policy in a world of inherent costs to anything being done. So before we think about advancing policy changes with far ranging impact, we should perform such an analysis. We may also realize at that point that alternative solutions may prove far cheaper than banning open sharing platforms or regulating them to the point where business is so expensive nobody cares to do so.
- xvector 8y ago
  I think your comparison is a bit disingenuous. Knives are a necessity. Live Facebook broadcasts are not.
- save_ferris 8y ago
  I'm not sure how such an analysis would work in this case for a few reasons. First, users don't pay to use Facebook, so the financial incentives are completely reversed from a car company that might be putting out defective cars. Second, Facebook isn't controversial because it makes defective products; it's controversial because of how the software works as designed. It's designed to maximize engagement, harvest user data, and display ads. Third, what is the material value that Facebook provides? At least with a car, you can pretty easily determine its value by looking at how it helps you increase your economic potential (i.e. getting you to work.) What's Facebook's true value to its users? Fourth, Facebook has been featured in headlines that few private companies have ever been in. The UN determined that Facebook played a "determining role" in the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar[0]. How exactly does one calculate the value of a human life vs the value that Facebook provides in that instance? Is it really so crazy to argue that companies that catalyze genocide perhaps shouldn't exist? People were ripped from their homes and brutally murdered in the streets because of what people were posting and reading on Facebook. Facebook eventually killed the entire Internet.org project. They got caught doing emotional manipulation research without the approval of the APA, they've faced salvo after salvo for their conduct in a variety of areas ranging from user privacy, election manipulation and illegal foreign campaigning, paying young users to to use intentionally monitored VPNs to gather data. The list goes on and on. [0]: https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-problem https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-pro...
Mirioron 8y ago
Content moderation should be an afterthought. Freedom of expression is vital in a free society.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  So how do you feel about the content moderation on this site? There are sites with no content moderation, and they can't seem to get many customers because they are so terrible.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    I don't care much for the content moderation on this site, but it's definitely not the place I would come to to have an open discussion on a sensitive topic.

Diederich 8y ago

I don't mean to sound harsh by asking this question, truly. What do you suggest at this point?

save_ferris 8y ago
I deeply question the value of FB's existence in its current form for many reasons, but given its size and influence, I'm not so naive to think that it's going away anytime soon. I chose years ago to stop using Facebook and encouraging others to do the same. I truly believe the absolute best thing FB could do for society would be to dissolve, but that's not realistic.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  So... you propose nothing, then? Or at least, you didn't really answer the question that was asked. What would you suggest as a solution to the problems stated? These problems are larger than just Facebook.
  - save_ferris 8y ago
    Choosing not support or engage with such an ethically compromised platform is a solution. Why do we carry around this mentality that everything can just be fixed? When did the idea of "maybe X thing shouldn't exist in our society" become such a foreign idea? Facebook is only valuable because people use it.
    - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
      If Facebook was Thanos snapped out of existence right now, the overarching problem would still exist. It's not constrained to the borders of a single Mountain View, CA company. How would you address the problem itself, rather than a single instance of it?
    - ng12 8y ago
      Facebook is a microcosm of the internet as a whole. The "X thing" here is a global decentralized network, not social media.
  - Diederich 8y ago
    Seems asked and answered to me: > What do you suggest at this point? > I truly believe the absolute best thing FB could do for society would be to dissolve, but that's not realistic. I take 'not realistic' to mean that it's not going to happen, which is accurate.
    - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
      "Not using Facebook" doesn't solve address the problem which exists outside of Facebook, so no, it wasn't answered.
      - Diederich 8y ago
        Well, I asked the question, and I consider his response an answer. Yes, these problems exists outside of FB. Yes, I'm sure the other poster is acknowledging very little if anything would change if FB disappeared, over a nominal time horizon. I personally think FB and the other social media sites are doing more good than harm, so I disagree with the other poster's overall assessment. One way or another, there are no clear or known paths that are reasonably possible away from this kind of situation.
        CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
        > Well, I asked the question, and I consider his response an answer. It's non sequitur at best, but technically an answer, sure. I'm more interested in something tangible and (hopefully) universifiable than "delete Facebook".
        Diederich 8y ago
        > I'm more interested in something tangible and (hopefully) universifiable than "delete Facebook". I am as well, believe me. I just don't think any are available, at least at the moment.
- basch 8y ago
  Do you feel the same way about telephones and web browsers. Because telephone companies cant pre-censor conversation...they dont have value. Because web browsers dont block objectionable content from reaching other peoples comp...they dont have value. I find it absurd to say that facebook has no value to people because it cant screen everything for worth before its posted. That said, sure why does something being posted have to be instantly visible without first meeting some criteria. What's wrong with a small buffer?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

420codebro 8y ago

I think you're spot on regarding the free/open-access platform inviting this kind of thing. I don't know if there really is a feasible solution - maybe a delayed-broadcast setup where a human moderator reviews each feed/view? Also maybe automatically have a human attach and watch feeds that are spontaneously getting popular without a clear reason, etc. I've read some folks floating the thought of requiring a Gov ID to livestream, etc. I am not in favor of this. How would that stop a psycho like this? He wouldn't care if you knew his real id. He would just pretend to be docile / normal until the second he starts broadcasting his horrible intentions.

CharlesColeman 8y ago
> I don't know if there really is a feasible solution - maybe a delayed-broadcast setup where a human moderator reviews each feed/view? Also maybe automatically have a human attach and watch feeds that are spontaneously getting popular without a clear reason, etc. I think those are very good ideas for mitigating this kind of problem. Facebook (and other internet companies) have basically built sharing platforms with no breaks, and that opens them up to exploitation by people like this mass shooter. I think the only effective solutions will involve retrofitting breaks and proactively inserting human moderators into the loop. There's literally no good reason that something should be able to go viral globally within hours of creation, not even disconnected natural disaster reports.
- ng12 8y ago
  > There's literally no good reason that something should be able to go viral globally within hours of creation, not even disconnected natural disaster reports. The article states the stream had ~200 views total. That's not anywhere close to viral.
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > The article states the stream had ~200 views total. That's not anywhere close to viral. No. According to the article the original video actually had ~4,000 views in the unspecified amount of time before it was removed. Only ~200 people watched it live. But you missed my point: the current design is setup to present as few obstacles as possible to something going viral, which means it's easy for something to spread so quickly it's impossible to moderate. The solution is to add obstacles on the path to virality to prevent things from going viral. These could include things like post-visibility delays that could trigger even before the objectionable content is even close to viral (and would similarly slow down the spread of mutated reposts).

d1zzy 8y ago

Before everyone brings their torch and pitchfork, do we know how much harm is being done on open sharing platforms vs the value they bring to society? I see people quickly jumping on the "stop the internet open sharing platforms" bandwagon when events like these happen, because the platform may be associated with the current "cultural villain" but just as we don't ban knives when they are used to murder people and are being produced by despicable companies I don't think we should ban the possibility of having open sharing platforms until we have determined they do more bad than good. Food for thought: in administrative decisions on improving car infrastructure/safety of intersections there is an actual value assigned human life. If the cost to build the improvements is less than the human life valuation of the lives that would be saved by the improvements then the project is not done. It's terrible to think of human lives as numbers but it is a requirement to do so for deciding policy in a world of inherent costs to anything being done. So before we think about advancing policy changes with far ranging impact, we should perform such an analysis. We may also realize at that point that alternative solutions may prove far cheaper than banning open sharing platforms or regulating them to the point where business is so expensive nobody cares to do so.

xvector 8y ago
I think your comparison is a bit disingenuous. Knives are a necessity. Live Facebook broadcasts are not.
save_ferris 8y ago
I'm not sure how such an analysis would work in this case for a few reasons. First, users don't pay to use Facebook, so the financial incentives are completely reversed from a car company that might be putting out defective cars. Second, Facebook isn't controversial because it makes defective products; it's controversial because of how the software works as designed. It's designed to maximize engagement, harvest user data, and display ads. Third, what is the material value that Facebook provides? At least with a car, you can pretty easily determine its value by looking at how it helps you increase your economic potential (i.e. getting you to work.) What's Facebook's true value to its users? Fourth, Facebook has been featured in headlines that few private companies have ever been in. The UN determined that Facebook played a "determining role" in the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar[0]. How exactly does one calculate the value of a human life vs the value that Facebook provides in that instance? Is it really so crazy to argue that companies that catalyze genocide perhaps shouldn't exist? People were ripped from their homes and brutally murdered in the streets because of what people were posting and reading on Facebook. Facebook eventually killed the entire Internet.org project. They got caught doing emotional manipulation research without the approval of the APA, they've faced salvo after salvo for their conduct in a variety of areas ranging from user privacy, election manipulation and illegal foreign campaigning, paying young users to to use intentionally monitored VPNs to gather data. The list goes on and on. [0]: https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-problem https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-pro...

Mirioron 8y ago

Content moderation should be an afterthought. Freedom of expression is vital in a free society.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
So how do you feel about the content moderation on this site? There are sites with no content moderation, and they can't seem to get many customers because they are so terrible.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  I don't care much for the content moderation on this site, but it's definitely not the place I would come to to have an open discussion on a sensitive topic.