5 ms·

If you don't have the ability to control your premises, or employ enough security, perhaps you should not be permitted to operate those premises. So we should

If you don't have the ability to control your premises, or employ enough security, perhaps you should not be permitted to operate those premises. So we should shut down the mosques in New Zealand because they didn't control their premises and keep the shooter out? Should we shut down banks because they didn't have enough security to keep a bank robber out? You are shifting the blame away from the perpetrator. Every crime ever could be blamed on the victim for lack of security.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Let's take it to the absurd. I am NOT shifting any blame from the perpetrator. I am placing additional blame on a medium that isn't willing to exercise adequate restraint or control. A bank undoubtedly has security measures in place to prevent robbery, if they don't bother, they won't last long. Nonetheless, there are regulations on what may and may not be done for public spaces, how crowded they may be to pass fire regulation and so forth. Neither a mosque nor bank should be closed for a circumstance that could not reasonably have been predicted.
- RandomTisk 8y ago
  Why stop at Facebook? The GoPro or iPhone he used should have caught it before it even reached facebook. The ISP should have caught it too. Lock them all up? How about the pavement the killer walked on, it should have swallowed him, let's sue the city for not designing shooter eating sidewalks? You're looking to go down a ridiculous road imo.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Which of those examples already have copyright infringement detection filters built in which should have been capable of preventing, e.g. re-uploading of the original livestream? Do any of them boast about their natural language processing and engage in psychological experiments on their users to detect, e.g. suicidal tendencies?
- o10449366 8y ago
  > Neither a mosque nor bank should be closed for a circumstance that could not reasonably have been predicted. How is this any different from Facebook? A bank has security measures in place to prevent robbery, but a robbery could still take place in one and is more likely to occur in one because it's a high value target. Facebook has human and AI moderation in place that automatically processes anything you upload. Users are also able to report content. However, just like sometimes banks are robbed, sometimes objectionable content slips through their filters. By your own logic Facebook shouldn't be closed down because mass shootings cannot be reasonably predicted. The basis for your argument is fundamentally flawed and if you extrapolate it to your own examples you'll quickly see how ridiculous and illogical it is.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    It isn't - if they were not providing a broadcast platform. The local bank branch broadcasts nada, if they do somehow broadcast your financial info they can be prosecuted for failing their duty of care, and you'll be eligible for compensation even without prosecution. Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit have size and reach enough that turning a blind eye is no longer credible. We've seen countless issues crop up with regard to elections, election advertising, hate speech, and in this case broadcasting a slaughter. All of which serve to demonstrate they are unwilling to self-regulate taking them into territory where it's clear current regulation is not adequate. Calling for adequate regulation to require moderation and oversight, and to require a duty of care to their users, viewers and listeners is not calling for them to be closed down. That comes if they prove unwilling to obey said regulation, as does any of the other measures brought to bear against habitual law breakers - fines, asset seizure, blocking etc. Regulation that will vary between different countries as they will choose differing limits.
  - gsich 8y ago
    Sometimes? I think the repeated uploads from the Christchurch video showed that their AI is not working.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    > How is this any different from Facebook? Primarily because we’ve been telling them they need to do a better job about this for years, so “could not reasonably have been predicted“ absolutely does not apply. They have literally been condemned by a United Nations investigator for what happened in Myanmar [1]. Multiple government have been unhappy with their attitude problem [2]. In this report, one of the problems is they “continue to host and publish the mosque attack video”, which they absolutely don’t have any excuse for not being aware of, not any more. If this is the best that the state of the art can manage, then the state of the art is not good enough for Facebook to continue to exist. If Facebook were a human, it would have been fired for gross negligence. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/13/myanmar-un-blames-facebook-for-spreading-hatred-of-rohingya https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/13/myanmar-u... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/31/uk-and-canada-mps-unite-to-demand-mark-zuckerberg-answers-questions-cambridge-analytica https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/31/uk-and-ca...
- thoughtfunction 8y ago
  We can apply the same argument to governments with their lack of censorship of bad words as people walk the streets. We don't because it's ridiculous on it's face, and we don't want a blatant surveillance society such as that.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  adequate restraint or control is a subjective impression most users probably do not agree with.
ethbro 8y ago
Those other businesses aren't running 40% profit margins. It's a fair question to ask, "If a company is that profitable and having toxic effects, then why shouldn't it pay some of the cost of addressing its toxic effects?" The tendency on HN is to say exploitive governments want to tax technology startups. But we're not talking about technology startups. We're talking about the new old-old ATT.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  > "If a company is that profitable and having toxic effects, then why shouldn't it pay some of the cost of addressing its toxic effects?" cf oil or chemical companies polluting via spills, etc.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
DSingularity 8y ago
I would argue that unlike your examples — the bank that got robbed; the mosque that got shot up — Facebook perpetrated and facilitated the crime. A better question would be, should a bank be held liable after being robbed if it failed its duties by designing cheap systems to save money — yes. Should a mosque/church be held liable if they received a threat and they ignored causing large loss of life — yes. Facebook is culpable. They know the kind of garbage that floats in their platform. They continue to develop their platform and they continue to improve their ad systems. Why won’t they dedicate as much engineering effort to gain an advantage on racism/hate speech/fascism? I’ll tell you why. Because Zuckerberg simply does not care. He owns the platform that dominates information flows and public discourse. Why would he undermine that?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Let's take it to the absurd. I am NOT shifting any blame from the perpetrator. I am placing additional blame on a medium that isn't willing to exercise adequate restraint or control. A bank undoubtedly has security measures in place to prevent robbery, if they don't bother, they won't last long. Nonetheless, there are regulations on what may and may not be done for public spaces, how crowded they may be to pass fire regulation and so forth. Neither a mosque nor bank should be closed for a circumstance that could not reasonably have been predicted.

RandomTisk 8y ago
Why stop at Facebook? The GoPro or iPhone he used should have caught it before it even reached facebook. The ISP should have caught it too. Lock them all up? How about the pavement the killer walked on, it should have swallowed him, let's sue the city for not designing shooter eating sidewalks? You're looking to go down a ridiculous road imo.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Which of those examples already have copyright infringement detection filters built in which should have been capable of preventing, e.g. re-uploading of the original livestream? Do any of them boast about their natural language processing and engage in psychological experiments on their users to detect, e.g. suicidal tendencies?
o10449366 8y ago
> Neither a mosque nor bank should be closed for a circumstance that could not reasonably have been predicted. How is this any different from Facebook? A bank has security measures in place to prevent robbery, but a robbery could still take place in one and is more likely to occur in one because it's a high value target. Facebook has human and AI moderation in place that automatically processes anything you upload. Users are also able to report content. However, just like sometimes banks are robbed, sometimes objectionable content slips through their filters. By your own logic Facebook shouldn't be closed down because mass shootings cannot be reasonably predicted. The basis for your argument is fundamentally flawed and if you extrapolate it to your own examples you'll quickly see how ridiculous and illogical it is.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  It isn't - if they were not providing a broadcast platform. The local bank branch broadcasts nada, if they do somehow broadcast your financial info they can be prosecuted for failing their duty of care, and you'll be eligible for compensation even without prosecution. Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit have size and reach enough that turning a blind eye is no longer credible. We've seen countless issues crop up with regard to elections, election advertising, hate speech, and in this case broadcasting a slaughter. All of which serve to demonstrate they are unwilling to self-regulate taking them into territory where it's clear current regulation is not adequate. Calling for adequate regulation to require moderation and oversight, and to require a duty of care to their users, viewers and listeners is not calling for them to be closed down. That comes if they prove unwilling to obey said regulation, as does any of the other measures brought to bear against habitual law breakers - fines, asset seizure, blocking etc. Regulation that will vary between different countries as they will choose differing limits.
- gsich 8y ago
  Sometimes? I think the repeated uploads from the Christchurch video showed that their AI is not working.
- ben_w 8y ago
  > How is this any different from Facebook? Primarily because we’ve been telling them they need to do a better job about this for years, so “could not reasonably have been predicted“ absolutely does not apply. They have literally been condemned by a United Nations investigator for what happened in Myanmar [1]. Multiple government have been unhappy with their attitude problem [2]. In this report, one of the problems is they “continue to host and publish the mosque attack video”, which they absolutely don’t have any excuse for not being aware of, not any more. If this is the best that the state of the art can manage, then the state of the art is not good enough for Facebook to continue to exist. If Facebook were a human, it would have been fired for gross negligence. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/13/myanmar-un-blames-facebook-for-spreading-hatred-of-rohingya https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/13/myanmar-u... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/31/uk-and-canada-mps-unite-to-demand-mark-zuckerberg-answers-questions-cambridge-analytica https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/31/uk-and-ca...
thoughtfunction 8y ago
We can apply the same argument to governments with their lack of censorship of bad words as people walk the streets. We don't because it's ridiculous on it's face, and we don't want a blatant surveillance society such as that.
raxxorrax 8y ago
adequate restraint or control is a subjective impression most users probably do not agree with.

ethbro 8y ago

Those other businesses aren't running 40% profit margins. It's a fair question to ask, "If a company is that profitable and having toxic effects, then why shouldn't it pay some of the cost of addressing its toxic effects?" The tendency on HN is to say exploitive governments want to tax technology startups. But we're not talking about technology startups. We're talking about the new old-old ATT.

zimpenfish 8y ago
> "If a company is that profitable and having toxic effects, then why shouldn't it pay some of the cost of addressing its toxic effects?" cf oil or chemical companies polluting via spills, etc.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

DSingularity 8y ago

I would argue that unlike your examples — the bank that got robbed; the mosque that got shot up — Facebook perpetrated and facilitated the crime. A better question would be, should a bank be held liable after being robbed if it failed its duties by designing cheap systems to save money — yes. Should a mosque/church be held liable if they received a threat and they ignored causing large loss of life — yes. Facebook is culpable. They know the kind of garbage that floats in their platform. They continue to develop their platform and they continue to improve their ad systems. Why won’t they dedicate as much engineering effort to gain an advantage on racism/hate speech/fascism? I’ll tell you why. Because Zuckerberg simply does not care. He owns the platform that dominates information flows and public discourse. Why would he undermine that?