3 ms·

I don't see what's so complicated about it. Facebook will set some standards and they will meter out moderation action as they feel is necessary. Will it be sel

I don't see what's so complicated about it. Facebook will set some standards and they will meter out moderation action as they feel is necessary. Will it be selectively applied in some cases? Yes. Will they get it wrong sometimes? Yes. So what? People who don't like Facebook's approach to moderation can quit, protest or otherwise boycott Facebook. This is the same problem of moderation that has always existed in online communities, the only difference between today and the past is that today the masses feel like they are entitled to use these platforms.

gfodor 8y ago
the other difference today is that 'the masses' used to mean ~millions of Internet-connected people staring at screens on their desks, now it means the whole damned planet, at all times. as these networks have grown to global scale we need to assess them for what they are, not for abstractions that may be less relevant now that these systems represent unprecedented "public squares"
- root_axis 8y ago
  > millions of Internet-connected people staring at screens on their desks, now it means the whole damned planet, at all times. So what? Those people use Facebook because they like to do so. If you feel like Facebook treats you unfairly then stop using it. It is permissible to communicate with people that use Facebook even if you don't use it. If you fundamentally disagree with the way Facebook operates then stop using it. Just stop using it.
  - gfodor 8y ago
    I deactivated my account years ago. My point wasn't about me, but about the fact that these platforms are intertwined enough into society they are blurring the lines between optional service customers can switch off of, and global-scale utilities that are necessary to operate in society.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      > these platforms are intertwined enough into society they are blurring the lines between optional service customers can switch off of, and global-scale utilities that are necessary to operate in society. That supposed blurring is illusory. There are no impactful consequences for not using Facebook; it is wholly unimportant and an entirely superficial distraction, in fact, less use of Facebook correlates positively with mental health. You most certainly do not need Facebook to operate in society.
      - f1refly 8y ago
        >There are no impactful consequences for not using Facebook Yes there are. I decided not to use facebook years ago. I also don't use any of their other services. Consequences range from being an outsider socially to being outright excluded from university/school/work events, because they're organized solely on Facebook and nobody told you. Everybody just assumes you're on there. When you enter a new peer group of 20+ people you can't just tell them to completely mix up their habits because you happen to not like what they're doing. You might be able to do that when a network is reasonably small. When a third of the world population is on there, that doesn't work anymore. The thesis you're defending is wrong.
        root_axis 8y ago
        Sorry but Facebook is not a social necessity, period. > When you enter a new peer group of 20+ people you can't just tell them to completely mix up their habits because you happen to not like what they're doing. You're constructing an image of reality that isn't correct in order to support your position. If you encounter a gathering of your peers and someone says, "hey, you on Facebook?" and you say "no, I don't really use Facebook" in reality, the conversation just moves forward with a discussion of a different communication medium like SMS or snapchat or twitter or e-mail or whatever. The suggestion that lacking a Facebook is social suicide is obviously wrong. Perhaps in your particular friend group people only communicate through Facebook, but that is definitely not typical and it still doesn't mean you need Facebook, it means that you find the Facebook network convenient for communicating with a particular group of people. Participating in a group-chat is not a necessity. What if your entire friend group communicates on Discord, does that mean you need discord? Obviously you don't need it, you just find it convenient. If you refuse to use Facebook and none of your friends care to adjust their habits to communicate with you that really has nothing to do with Facebook and certainly doesn't imply that Facebook is now a social need. > The thesis you're defending is wrong. My thesis is just common sense. The idea that Facebook is a necessity is laughably absurd.
  - kaolti 8y ago
    You are arguing from theory. That's not how people work. YOU might work this way, but that doesn't mean this applies to people in general. If you make something addictive, people still hold personal responsibility and can decide to quit, HOWEVER the majority of people will still find it hard to do so and therein lies the issue.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      I'm not understanding your point. Are you suggesting that there are people who hate Facebook but they're so addicted that they can't quit? So what? They should seek counseling for addiction. If someone hates Facebook but can't muster up enough self control to quit that's entirely their own fault, their addiction to it certainly doesn't imply that they are entitled to it. If you lose your wedding ring in a bad beat at the casino, that is entirely your own fault, you don't get to blame the casino for being addictive.

gfodor 8y ago

the other difference today is that 'the masses' used to mean ~millions of Internet-connected people staring at screens on their desks, now it means the whole damned planet, at all times. as these networks have grown to global scale we need to assess them for what they are, not for abstractions that may be less relevant now that these systems represent unprecedented "public squares"

root_axis 8y ago
> millions of Internet-connected people staring at screens on their desks, now it means the whole damned planet, at all times. So what? Those people use Facebook because they like to do so. If you feel like Facebook treats you unfairly then stop using it. It is permissible to communicate with people that use Facebook even if you don't use it. If you fundamentally disagree with the way Facebook operates then stop using it. Just stop using it.
- gfodor 8y ago
  I deactivated my account years ago. My point wasn't about me, but about the fact that these platforms are intertwined enough into society they are blurring the lines between optional service customers can switch off of, and global-scale utilities that are necessary to operate in society.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > these platforms are intertwined enough into society they are blurring the lines between optional service customers can switch off of, and global-scale utilities that are necessary to operate in society. That supposed blurring is illusory. There are no impactful consequences for not using Facebook; it is wholly unimportant and an entirely superficial distraction, in fact, less use of Facebook correlates positively with mental health. You most certainly do not need Facebook to operate in society.
    - f1refly 8y ago
      >There are no impactful consequences for not using Facebook Yes there are. I decided not to use facebook years ago. I also don't use any of their other services. Consequences range from being an outsider socially to being outright excluded from university/school/work events, because they're organized solely on Facebook and nobody told you. Everybody just assumes you're on there. When you enter a new peer group of 20+ people you can't just tell them to completely mix up their habits because you happen to not like what they're doing. You might be able to do that when a network is reasonably small. When a third of the world population is on there, that doesn't work anymore. The thesis you're defending is wrong.
      - root_axis 8y ago
        Sorry but Facebook is not a social necessity, period. > When you enter a new peer group of 20+ people you can't just tell them to completely mix up their habits because you happen to not like what they're doing. You're constructing an image of reality that isn't correct in order to support your position. If you encounter a gathering of your peers and someone says, "hey, you on Facebook?" and you say "no, I don't really use Facebook" in reality, the conversation just moves forward with a discussion of a different communication medium like SMS or snapchat or twitter or e-mail or whatever. The suggestion that lacking a Facebook is social suicide is obviously wrong. Perhaps in your particular friend group people only communicate through Facebook, but that is definitely not typical and it still doesn't mean you need Facebook, it means that you find the Facebook network convenient for communicating with a particular group of people. Participating in a group-chat is not a necessity. What if your entire friend group communicates on Discord, does that mean you need discord? Obviously you don't need it, you just find it convenient. If you refuse to use Facebook and none of your friends care to adjust their habits to communicate with you that really has nothing to do with Facebook and certainly doesn't imply that Facebook is now a social need. > The thesis you're defending is wrong. My thesis is just common sense. The idea that Facebook is a necessity is laughably absurd.
- kaolti 8y ago
  You are arguing from theory. That's not how people work. YOU might work this way, but that doesn't mean this applies to people in general. If you make something addictive, people still hold personal responsibility and can decide to quit, HOWEVER the majority of people will still find it hard to do so and therein lies the issue.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    I'm not understanding your point. Are you suggesting that there are people who hate Facebook but they're so addicted that they can't quit? So what? They should seek counseling for addiction. If someone hates Facebook but can't muster up enough self control to quit that's entirely their own fault, their addiction to it certainly doesn't imply that they are entitled to it. If you lose your wedding ring in a bad beat at the casino, that is entirely your own fault, you don't get to blame the casino for being addictive.