10 ms·
Case in point, the "fake news" law in France: it basically asks Facebook and friends to 1° detect abuse, propaganda and "fake news" 2° remove it automatically
by wazoox 7y ago
Case in point, the "fake news" law in France: it basically asks Facebook and friends to
1° detect abuse, propaganda and "fake news"
2° remove it automatically.
So they're handed altogether the power of police, jury and executioner. They're already much too powerful, and they were just given much more power for free. What will become of free speech under these conditions? Do you think Twitter will flag Macron's tweets when he spouts out blatant lies, which is actually quite often?
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoIsn't that just the power every Editor wields? Perhaps its inappropriate to consider Facebook the 'publisher' of everything on the site. But its not more power than any other publisher possesses (choosing their own editorial staff).
- golemotron 7y agoIt's fully appropriate to consider Facebook the publisher of everything on their site. They exercise editorial control.
- cameronbrown 7y agoPoint is that many disagree they should. If we take that Facebook is a critical network owned by a company, just like the internet is a critical network owned by many companies, is it not reasonable to assume it is infrastructure and not a publisher? Not saying I agree or disagree, just playing devil's advocate.
- root_axis 7y agoFacebook is definitely not a "critical network". It is a privately owned network operated by a corporation, it is not "critical" or even necessary, in fact, studies suggest increased use of Facebook correlates with poor mental health. Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook.
- raxxorrax 7y agoI agree in principle, but as a news publisher, you practically have to use Facebook to stay relevant. Same goes for Google to a lesser degree. All the laws like the EUs article 13 were tools in the fight between publishers and the internet giants. They just have the masses of users.
- anoncake 7y agoYou agree in principle that nobody needs Facebook while acknowledging that somebody needs Facebook?
- riskable 7y agoAs a business you need a way to engage with potential or existing customers. Yesterday that "way" was to pay newspapers, the Yellow Pages, etc to place ads. Then it moved to banner ads on various websites and today they use Facebook and Google (and other publishers/communities where people gather). If both Facebook and Google were to disappear business would just use whatever replaces them. The companies aren't essential. The service they provide is. The good news is that service can be provided by basically any business. It's just a problem concentration/monopoly that they're the current focus.
- anoncake 7y agoThe world does not need Facebook. If Facebook went away, people would use another service to find and communicate with businesses. Businesses would use another service to be found and be communicated with. But today, people need Facebook because businesses (and other people) use Facebook and businesses need Facebook because people use Facebook. Facebook is completely replaceable for society, but that doesn't make it less critical for many individuals.
- EpicEng 7y agoAnd if FB went away tomorrow the companies would find another way. It's not like they weren't successful before FB came around. FB is only "critical" for as long as it exists in it's current form... which makes it not at all critical to begin with.
- avar 7y agoThey themselves have said they should. They actively censor their platform and enforce an editorial policy on the basis of their own business interests, nobody made them do that. The Signal IM program is also run by a company. Unlike Facebook you could argue that what they're running is infrastructure. They aren't trying to say censor Alex Jones to be more appealing to advertisers. Facebook is fully within their rights to run their company like that, but they can't expect to also have governments view them a common carrier when they're anything but.
- anoncake 7y agoNot as long as they have "community standards".
- 50656E6973 7y agoNo, it's not feasible for a few thousand people to exercise "editorial control" on billions of people. This isn't at all like a newspaper which only has to do that on a few hundred people. Scale matters!
- danharaj 7y agoMaybe that means facebook shouldn't exist as it is today.
- antidesitter 7y agoHow so?
- 50656E6973 7y agoToo Big To Not Fail
- anoncake 7y agoFacebook exercises editorial control on their website. That makes them its publisher and thus responsible for all content. If they cannot publish Facebook responsibly, they cannot publish it period.
- antidesitter 7y agoAccording to what legislation? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act states [0]: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Exercising editorial control does not make them liable for all content [1]: Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from tort liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third party. See [2] for some examples of online activities that are covered. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 [1] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-u... [2] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-section-230 http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-se...
- lixtra 7y agoIn that case they should be held responsible for everything “they publish” from the first second on.
- shstalwart 7y agoAn alternative point of says they are platform which is censored.
- duxup 7y ago>So they're handed altogether the power of police, jury and executioner. I have that on any given site I make by default.
- anoncake 7y agoAs long as your site is small enough that having that power does not give you significantly more power than any other citizen has, that is not a problem. The threshold for "small enough" is of course fuzzy and debatable, but definitely lower than 2.3 Billion users.
- ryanmarsh 7y agoSerious question: is celebrity gossip allowed? It’s a major source of ad revenue in the news business and has been for quite some time. There’s no way to tell what is fake and what is not? Not to mention nobody cares if it’s fake. They love the gossip. How is this handled?
- beepboopbeep 7y agoThis is an absurd slippery slope falacy.
- wazoox 7y agoIf this was happening in isolation, that could be. But it's also happening in a general atmosphere of extreme police violence (6 months of constant protests, 1 dead, 5 hands ripped off, 23 eyes gouged, 3000 persons jailed for no discernible reason), authoritarian policy, and extending surveillance -- and no proper counter-power, making Macron almost indiscernible from his distinctly fascistic, official main opponent. Later this week, in European elections, prepare to see a landslide of far-right parties of various racist, xenophobic flavours in all countries. A slippery slope? Looks like an oily slide into chaos indeed.
- mistermann 7y agoSee: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-20/australia-election-is-not-the-only-one-the-new-right-is-winning https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-20/austra...