4 ms·
This is a great example, thank you. The good people who operate the postal service, courier services and telephone networks also deploy very capable security t
by panarky 8y ago
This is a great example, thank you.
The good people who operate the postal service, courier services and telephone networks also deploy very capable security tools to ensure their services aren't used to create mayhem.
It's not perfect, as occasionally FedEx will deliver a bomb, or the post office will deliver an envelope with anthrax powder, or a threat will be delivered by telephone.
But you can tell that the security tools are operating effectively because these events are rare and isolated. When was the last time 50 people died because of DHL or Verizon?
In contrast, Facebook released their creation on the world without the tools needed to keep it safe. Now they've lost control and are trying to deflect blame on "the industry".
We cannot allow Facebook to escape accountability. It's their responsibility, not "the community" or "the industry".
If they cannot fix it, and fast, then they must be rigorously regulated to disable features that cause more harm than good.
Zuckerberg's latest strategy is to encrypt everything so even Facebook can't read it. This is one more cynical attempt to force others to bear the negative externalities of the monster he created.
- deno 8y agoWhat has Facebook exactly “unleashed” upon the world? Facebook didn’t invent live streaming. You think someone determined won’t be able to do a one-off stream without Facebook? > In contrast, Facebook released their creation on the world without the tools needed to keep it safe. Instead we should be more like China. They keep their citizens safe, right? Yes, free speech has negative externalities. But imagine world without it.
- panarky 8y ago> Facebook didn't invent live streaming When you understand why the terrorist selected Facebook to livestream instead of hundreds of other services, then you'll understand why Facebook is the problem and not livestreaming itself.
- deno 8y agoIf you have an argument to make then make it. The live stream was viewed meager 200 times. The logistical purpose of a live stream is that it’s hard to upload videos when you’re in a shoot out with police or dead. Perhaps you should blame 4G networks and portable cameras for enabling this tragedy.
- lancewiggs 8y agoAnd then instantly copied and replicated millions of time. Facebook's argument is garbage - their platform got this video to the world. And I am very angry, as we all should be. NZer.
- deno 8y agoSo you think their censorship is not up to snuff then?
- aeternus 8y agoThere are many sites and apps that support live-streaming. It is very difficult if not impossible to stop the spread of information, especially with the internet. Other platforms that could have been used: youtube, twitch, periscope, vimeo, younow, dailymotion, ooyala, even IBM has a live video streaming offering.
- Throwway32 8y agoThe current interpretation of the First Amendment dates back only to 1969. And even the US government had no qualms about ordering a drone strike on a US citizen who was engaging in violent and hateful incitement. There have been, and there are no, societies in the world with absolute free speech.
- deno 8y agoYou make a throwaway account to denigrate free speech. How ironic.
- Throwway32 8y agoThe admins know my IP address. If I was posting from Tor, I’d have been dead-flagged automatically. If I was making violent threats, I’d have my comment killed at best. None of those are inconsistent with free speech.
- Mirioron 8y agoWhy are you blaming a tool for communication for people's actions? >It's not perfect, as occasionally FedEx will deliver a bomb, or the post office will deliver an envelope with anthrax powder, or a threat will be delivered by telephone. This is a false comparison. When was the last time Facebook was used to deliver a bomb? The answer is "never" because it's literally impossible to do so. Terrorists can communicate through the mail service just like they can on Facebook and there is nothing the mail service can do, because the secrecy of your correspondence is literally a human right (article 12 of the universal declaration of human rights).
- panarky 8y ago> When was the last time Facebook was used to deliver a bomb? Of course I didn't say Facebook delivered a bomb. I said Facebook is causing harm. Other communication services have effective security measures to minimize and isolate the harm they can do. Facebook does not. Facebook has lost control of their platform, and they are unable or unwilling to minimize and isolate the harm their platform inflicts on the world. > Terrorists can communicate through the mail service just like they can on Facebook The fact that terrorists choose Facebook instead of the mail should tell you that Facebook is the problem we need to fix.
- Mirioron 8y ago>Of course I didn't say Facebook delivered a bomb. I said Facebook is causing harm. You claim that Facebook causes harm because people can communicate there without it being checked. You claim that the mail is different because they check that the mail isn't a literal bomb, and this is why the mail service doesn't cause harm. But people can communicate through the mail service without it being checked as well. In fact, checking somebody else's mail is very illegal. So the same harm you abuse Facebook of facilitating can be done through regular mail. >Other communication services have effective security measures to minimize and isolate the harm they can do. No, they don't. Let me put it in caps for you: IT IS ILLEGAL TO CHECK SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. It is actually a violation of human rights. The mail service does not check what is written in your letters. >The fact that terrorists choose Facebook instead of the mail should tell you that Facebook is the problem we need to fix. This is so ridiculously shortsighted. They use it because it's popular and convenient, not because it's the only way to do it.