3 ms·
I'm not a staunch defender of social media giants, but this article paints them in an unfair light. It seems to suggest that FB endorses content like the Chris
by tenaciousDaniel 7y ago
I'm not a staunch defender of social media giants, but this article paints them in an unfair light.
It seems to suggest that FB endorses content like the Christchurch video, merely because the guy posted it on FB live. FB removed the video as fast as they could.
Apart from magical AI that could somehow stop the recording, I really don't know how else FB should have acted.
- asark 7y agoWhat they could have done was have an entirely different business model. Guy sets up super-projector pointed at the moon, lets people submit videos to a website and vote on which ones get projected on the moon. Pretty soon it's playing gore porn. Guy takes it down as soon as he finds out says "oh man sorry about that, don't know what I could have done to stop that", but then turns the projector right back on because every so often it plays an ad and those are paying his bills. Some things are just a fundamentally bad idea and there's no fixing it. I don't have a great solution for it. I'm pretty sure the entire Internet has proven to be a bad idea, in fact, but like so much technology you can't put it back in the box so now we're stuck with it.