3 ms·
All of this moderation stuff feels like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Facebook. People have been crapping on Facebook for making jud
by artemisyna 8y ago
All of this moderation stuff feels like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Facebook.
People have been crapping on Facebook for making judgement calls on what's allowed on its platform. When Facebook does so without government backing, people get up-in-arms saying that it should be the government's role to decide free speech. But when the company goes and requests that government start doing that, people get up-in-arms about how it'll be "regulatory capture".
I can't predict what the outcome of all of this will be. I can however, predict that there will be an angsty article (Bloomberg? New York Times? Wall Street Journal?) decrying how Facebook is awful, evil, and incompetent.
- ma2rten 8y agoI feel like this entire opinion piece is just a knee-jack reaction against anything what Mark Zuckerberg has to say. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt until it started talking about how bad GDPR is. GDPR has some short-comings, but it's a bit less black-and-white than what this article makes it out to be. Maybe what Mark Zuckerberg saying really is self-serving but this article doesn't make any good arguments for it. It's just making assertions which it doesn't back up. I don't know if it's just me getting old, but I started noticing this kind of intellectual dishonesty more and more recently in the media and even here on HN.
- chillacy 8y agoI think a lot of psychological research confirms that people start with the opinion or position and find evidence (any will do) to back it up, not the other way around. So it's not surprising it shows up in lots of debates between people.