4 ms·

If they don't know what's being posted, maybe they should change how their platform works? If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their s

If they don't know what's being posted, maybe they should change how their platform works? If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it. A traditional broadcaster would have their licence revoked. A print publisher would be in serious trouble. But when it happens online, somehow it's someone else's problem. This seems odd to me.

tjpnz 8y ago
Exactly this. I work in C2C e-commerce which in my jurisdiction has very strict laws around ensuring we do due diligence on the people we allow onto our platform. If we didn't we would be finished. The only way to get Facebook to start taking this more seriously is through more regulation.
- bigiain 8y ago
  I partly agree. It'd also be nice if individuals were held responsible for death threats and rape threats they post on-line. Facebook are morally corrupt because they aid and abet morally corrupt individuals. Both Facebook and those individuals should be held to account for that.
  - jackvalentine 8y ago
    Not saying you personally do this, but it seems every time Europe prosecutes someone for threats of violence on twitter there are the usual fools here shouting "it's just free speech!"
    - bigiain 8y ago
      Yeah. Most people shouting "free speech" are fully aware that shouting "Fire! Fire!" in a cinema might be "free speech" but is certainly not free of consequences. I'm pretty sure "the usual fools" turn out to be complete hypocrites when it's their girlfriend/sister/mother getting rape threats too... And there's no "1st Amendment to the US constitution" right to "free speech" in most of the world. If your Nazi hate speech ends up in Germany, both you and Facebook will be held to account for that no matter how many Ayn Rand books you've read or how dedicated to ethics in video game journalism you are.
      - jackvalentine 8y ago
        As much as the mainstream on here/reddit is afraid of Europe 'breaking' the internet I'm kinda excited. The interesting stuff will remain underground/out of the mainstream and these 'scale monsters' in US social media might not be able to operate in the way they have been pushing all the negative externalities on to society even if we don't use them. For those of us outside the U.S. that don't subscribe to their view on free speech... it's not a negative.
ukoki 8y ago
> If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it That's not quite true. No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail. Facebook is not the USPS, but it's not a traditional publisher either — and just like the USPS it simply couldn't work if you wanted the same level of editorial oversight as a publisher. edit: typo
- djaychela 8y ago
  I'm not sure that the USPS parallel works completely, but I do get your point. I agree that it couldn't work in the way it currently does, but that's what I'm getting at - that maybe it shouldn't be able to work in the way that it does presently. I think that it is much more like a broadcaster than a 'platform', but I know not everyone agrees with that.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail Mailing death threats is illegal: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/876 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/876 (so much for "free speech", eh?) It doesn't appear to be illegal to post them on Facebook?
  - negamax 8y ago
    So yeah, change the law. Hold the posters accountable. Why Facebook? That's absurd
  - j16sdiz 8y ago
    It is illegal to post on facebook too. The question is: who should be enforcing the law....
- bigiain 8y ago
  <stupid pushing the analogy too far reply> If US Post opened and scanned all the letters, and offered to sell targeted firearm advertising to people who send death threats, nobody would say "That's OK, they're just 'The Platform'"...
jeltz 8y ago
In Sweden the a bunch of publishers are using the same defence as FB right now. They are being investigate for automatically republishing slander originating from a company similar to AP. If they win their case I do not see why FB should be held to a higher standard.

tjpnz 8y ago

Exactly this. I work in C2C e-commerce which in my jurisdiction has very strict laws around ensuring we do due diligence on the people we allow onto our platform. If we didn't we would be finished. The only way to get Facebook to start taking this more seriously is through more regulation.

bigiain 8y ago
I partly agree. It'd also be nice if individuals were held responsible for death threats and rape threats they post on-line. Facebook are morally corrupt because they aid and abet morally corrupt individuals. Both Facebook and those individuals should be held to account for that.
- jackvalentine 8y ago
  Not saying you personally do this, but it seems every time Europe prosecutes someone for threats of violence on twitter there are the usual fools here shouting "it's just free speech!"
  - bigiain 8y ago
    Yeah. Most people shouting "free speech" are fully aware that shouting "Fire! Fire!" in a cinema might be "free speech" but is certainly not free of consequences. I'm pretty sure "the usual fools" turn out to be complete hypocrites when it's their girlfriend/sister/mother getting rape threats too... And there's no "1st Amendment to the US constitution" right to "free speech" in most of the world. If your Nazi hate speech ends up in Germany, both you and Facebook will be held to account for that no matter how many Ayn Rand books you've read or how dedicated to ethics in video game journalism you are.
    - jackvalentine 8y ago
      As much as the mainstream on here/reddit is afraid of Europe 'breaking' the internet I'm kinda excited. The interesting stuff will remain underground/out of the mainstream and these 'scale monsters' in US social media might not be able to operate in the way they have been pushing all the negative externalities on to society even if we don't use them. For those of us outside the U.S. that don't subscribe to their view on free speech... it's not a negative.

ukoki 8y ago

> If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it That's not quite true. No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail. Facebook is not the USPS, but it's not a traditional publisher either — and just like the USPS it simply couldn't work if you wanted the same level of editorial oversight as a publisher. edit: typo

djaychela 8y ago
I'm not sure that the USPS parallel works completely, but I do get your point. I agree that it couldn't work in the way it currently does, but that's what I'm getting at - that maybe it shouldn't be able to work in the way that it does presently. I think that it is much more like a broadcaster than a 'platform', but I know not everyone agrees with that.
pjc50 8y ago
> No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail Mailing death threats is illegal: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/876 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/876 (so much for "free speech", eh?) It doesn't appear to be illegal to post them on Facebook?
- negamax 8y ago
  So yeah, change the law. Hold the posters accountable. Why Facebook? That's absurd
- j16sdiz 8y ago
  It is illegal to post on facebook too. The question is: who should be enforcing the law....
bigiain 8y ago
<stupid pushing the analogy too far reply> If US Post opened and scanned all the letters, and offered to sell targeted firearm advertising to people who send death threats, nobody would say "That's OK, they're just 'The Platform'"...

jeltz 8y ago

In Sweden the a bunch of publishers are using the same defence as FB right now. They are being investigate for automatically republishing slander originating from a company similar to AP. If they win their case I do not see why FB should be held to a higher standard.