3 ms·

I don't doubt regulation would help Facebook in some respects, but (in usual Bloomberg fashion) this article is also stretching some things a bit. For example:

by aylmao 8y ago

I don't doubt regulation would help Facebook in some respects, but (in usual Bloomberg fashion) this article is also stretching some things a bit. For example: > Start with harmful content, which Zuckerberg defines as “terrorist propaganda, hate speech and more.” Facebook would prefer that someone else decide what constitutes such content and should thus be taken down. I agree with this. Having a private corporation that's invested in engagement, which is also headquartered in the US (very far geographically and culturally from some of the places it moderates) be in charge of defining what's right and what's wrong, is and has been a recipe for disaster— let alone the implications it could have around the sovereignty of nations. > But it’s hard to see how this would benefit anyone but Facebook. Excuse me, what? > Inviting the government to arbitrate what qualifies as “harmful” speech is a legal and ethical minefield, while establishing a third-party system to do the same would amount to offloading corporate responsibility. Isn't this the government's job though? To define what is a crime/wrong and what isn't, and to deal with the moral aspect of legal codes? Isn't this why we have laws? I don't think anyone is vouching for "big brother" type government control here, but governments always have a principal role in civil rights, inclusion and the moral development of a nation. It's part of their job, and the reason people care to have leaders with strong moral compasses as public servants. Has this view of government been lost in the US? > There’s no reason to expect every platform to adhere to the same content policies, but every reason to want them to exercise judgment and accept accountability. I'm there's things that should clearly be blocked or allowed. But the gray areas are what's being discussed here, and honestly I don't think that should be Facebook's job (or any private, American, for-profit corporation for that matter).

duxup 8y ago
I think there's a bit of a disconnect when it comes to "harmful" speech, and "illegal". The US government isn't going to decide what is "harmful" at least not for long as a legal challenge would quickly do away with any such rules. In the end the platforms have to decide for themselves and police themselves unless they want to be 4chan or whatever the next "post anything" kinda place is now a days. Right or wrong they're the only folks who can do it.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  Especially when the word "harm" is redefined to include invisible injury, rather than physical or material. Its one thing to say "He beat me up!" as your nose is bleeding and you have witnesses, or "He stole my wallet" and the police find your wallet on the guy, but its another entirely to say "He hurt my feelings!" We are leaving objectivity behind here.
dustindiamond 8y ago
Who’s government?
- aylmao 8y ago
  Each person's, hopefully.
drngdds 8y ago
It has never been the US government's job to decide which speech is 'harmful' and should be silenced. The First Amendment prevents that. (Of course, some things like slander are illegal, but that's nothing like the 'harmful speech' Facebook is talking about.)
- ben509 8y ago
  > Of course, some things like slander are illegal Specifically, to prove slander, the defamed party has to demonstrate intent and damages. Same with fraud. Both of these are cases of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    Not in many non-USA countries. Just damage and negligence is enough in many other English speaking countries [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
    - ben509 8y ago
      It also depends if it's a tort or criminal.
- reissbaker 8y ago
  It is entirely the US government's job to decide which speech is harmful: it just takes the view that most speech isn't harmful, and should be allowed. The First Amendment is part of the US government's decision on speech: its view is that most speech is more good than bad, and thus is protected. When it does decide that certain speech, like libel, is harmful, it bans it. It even can ban speech in specific contexts! For example, in Brandenburg v. Ohio the court upheld that speech "which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" could be banned. So, saying an inflammatory thing privately to your friend, for example, could be fine, but boosting that post to millions of people could be viewed as "likely to incite imminent lawless action" such as a riot.
smokeyj 8y ago
> I don't think anyone is vouching for "big brother" type government control here, but governments always have a principal role in civil rights, inclusion and the moral development of a nation. Lol, what does this even mean? You want a Theocracy with Zuck writing the scripture? Are your views tainted in any way by Facebook Incorporated? The government and their role in defining "harmful" has been defined already. It's called the First Amendment. Might want to check it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
a_tractor 8y ago
> To define what is a crime/wrong and what isn't, and to deal with the moral aspect of legal codes? Isn't this why we have laws? The other thing that is provided by the government is how it applies justice, both in how it comes to its judgements and what the punishment should be. The keys being trial by a jury of your peers but most importantly the implementation of a framework for an individual to defend himself. This is far superior to the more statutory and punitive corporate "conduct policies" are applied in the name of so-called political correctness, which is ideologically closed-minded and therefore arbitrary and tyrannical to begin with. One of the primary complaints of the people who have been purged from the likes of twitter and youtube is that there is no court to appeal to, and when done all the way across platforms, no possibility to defend oneself at all. A cabal of corporate entities could simply decide to unperson someone, and it doesn't even matter why, because all evidence will just be erased and it will be impossible to hear from the person or group ever again. There is no trial, no record, no evidence, no possibility for defense or corrective action. Just summary judgement by a black boxed dictate into the memory hole. At least the US justice system is designed to prevent this sort of absolute tyranny. Also, what is this obsession with such a vaguely defined and subjective attribute as "harmful?" The logical conclusion of using the power of the State to "prevent harm" expanded to the emotional and psychological realms and basing its standard on the weakest and most subjective expressions of both will be to put every human on earth in a padding room, if not literally at least figuratively. Its like a new fundamentalist religion centered around Jainism, only with a bit of Marxist totalitarianism thrown in. Meanwhile, most animals are born, possibly reproduce, and then die. What the hell are we doing and why are people so fragile all of a sudden?
lorenzorhoades 8y ago
The only problem I see here is Facebook is offloading the 'hard problem' of algorithmically dealing with such massive data that requires top-notch machine learning algorithms to be able to detect sentiment at 'Facebook level Scale' to a massively more technically inept party. Look up how much money it cost to do the ObamaCare website, then tell the same party to develop an algorithm that Facebook, one of the biggest technology company's in the world, is having a hard time solving. This problem is only going to get harder and harder as the amount of data created is rising.
throwaway284721 8y ago
> I agree with this. Having a private corporation that's invested in engagement, which is also headquartered in the US (very far geographically and culturally from some of the places it moderates) be in charge of defining what's right and what's wrong, is and has been a recipe for disaster— let alone the implications it could have around the sovereignty of nations. What? If Facebook decides it, it's a threat to sovereignity of countries other then the US, but if the USG decides it, it isn't?

by aylmao 8y ago

duxup 8y ago

I think there's a bit of a disconnect when it comes to "harmful" speech, and "illegal". The US government isn't going to decide what is "harmful" at least not for long as a legal challenge would quickly do away with any such rules. In the end the platforms have to decide for themselves and police themselves unless they want to be 4chan or whatever the next "post anything" kinda place is now a days. Right or wrong they're the only folks who can do it.

a_tractor 8y ago
Especially when the word "harm" is redefined to include invisible injury, rather than physical or material. Its one thing to say "He beat me up!" as your nose is bleeding and you have witnesses, or "He stole my wallet" and the police find your wallet on the guy, but its another entirely to say "He hurt my feelings!" We are leaving objectivity behind here.

dustindiamond 8y ago

Who’s government?

aylmao 8y ago
Each person's, hopefully.

drngdds 8y ago

It has never been the US government's job to decide which speech is 'harmful' and should be silenced. The First Amendment prevents that. (Of course, some things like slander are illegal, but that's nothing like the 'harmful speech' Facebook is talking about.)

ben509 8y ago
> Of course, some things like slander are illegal Specifically, to prove slander, the defamed party has to demonstrate intent and damages. Same with fraud. Both of these are cases of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
- danieltillett 8y ago
  Not in many non-USA countries. Just damage and negligence is enough in many other English speaking countries [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
  - ben509 8y ago
    It also depends if it's a tort or criminal.
reissbaker 8y ago
It is entirely the US government's job to decide which speech is harmful: it just takes the view that most speech isn't harmful, and should be allowed. The First Amendment is part of the US government's decision on speech: its view is that most speech is more good than bad, and thus is protected. When it does decide that certain speech, like libel, is harmful, it bans it. It even can ban speech in specific contexts! For example, in Brandenburg v. Ohio the court upheld that speech "which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" could be banned. So, saying an inflammatory thing privately to your friend, for example, could be fine, but boosting that post to millions of people could be viewed as "likely to incite imminent lawless action" such as a riot.

smokeyj 8y ago

> I don't think anyone is vouching for "big brother" type government control here, but governments always have a principal role in civil rights, inclusion and the moral development of a nation. Lol, what does this even mean? You want a Theocracy with Zuck writing the scripture? Are your views tainted in any way by Facebook Incorporated? The government and their role in defining "harmful" has been defined already. It's called the First Amendment. Might want to check it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

a_tractor 8y ago

> To define what is a crime/wrong and what isn't, and to deal with the moral aspect of legal codes? Isn't this why we have laws? The other thing that is provided by the government is how it applies justice, both in how it comes to its judgements and what the punishment should be. The keys being trial by a jury of your peers but most importantly the implementation of a framework for an individual to defend himself. This is far superior to the more statutory and punitive corporate "conduct policies" are applied in the name of so-called political correctness, which is ideologically closed-minded and therefore arbitrary and tyrannical to begin with. One of the primary complaints of the people who have been purged from the likes of twitter and youtube is that there is no court to appeal to, and when done all the way across platforms, no possibility to defend oneself at all. A cabal of corporate entities could simply decide to unperson someone, and it doesn't even matter why, because all evidence will just be erased and it will be impossible to hear from the person or group ever again. There is no trial, no record, no evidence, no possibility for defense or corrective action. Just summary judgement by a black boxed dictate into the memory hole. At least the US justice system is designed to prevent this sort of absolute tyranny. Also, what is this obsession with such a vaguely defined and subjective attribute as "harmful?" The logical conclusion of using the power of the State to "prevent harm" expanded to the emotional and psychological realms and basing its standard on the weakest and most subjective expressions of both will be to put every human on earth in a padding room, if not literally at least figuratively. Its like a new fundamentalist religion centered around Jainism, only with a bit of Marxist totalitarianism thrown in. Meanwhile, most animals are born, possibly reproduce, and then die. What the hell are we doing and why are people so fragile all of a sudden?

lorenzorhoades 8y ago

The only problem I see here is Facebook is offloading the 'hard problem' of algorithmically dealing with such massive data that requires top-notch machine learning algorithms to be able to detect sentiment at 'Facebook level Scale' to a massively more technically inept party. Look up how much money it cost to do the ObamaCare website, then tell the same party to develop an algorithm that Facebook, one of the biggest technology company's in the world, is having a hard time solving. This problem is only going to get harder and harder as the amount of data created is rising.

throwaway284721 8y ago

> I agree with this. Having a private corporation that's invested in engagement, which is also headquartered in the US (very far geographically and culturally from some of the places it moderates) be in charge of defining what's right and what's wrong, is and has been a recipe for disaster— let alone the implications it could have around the sovereignty of nations. What? If Facebook decides it, it's a threat to sovereignity of countries other then the US, but if the USG decides it, it isn't?