4 ms·

What should be the rule about what videos are banned? We don't want to ban parodies I suppose? What if the author of the Pelosi video claims it's a parody? It

by _cs2017_ 7y ago

What should be the rule about what videos are banned? We don't want to ban parodies I suppose? What if the author of the Pelosi video claims it's a parody? It would be great if we could allow parodies and jokes as long as a reasonable person can tell that this is indeed a joke. But that won't work since people disagree about what's "reasonable". I guess we can require that parodies and jokes are tagged as such, so people don't confuse them with real stuff. Is that too overbearing? Are there any better solutions that have been proposed?

raxxorrax 7y ago
I just want people to accept the fact that not everything you read/see on the internet is the absolute truth. Younger people learn early to navigate the web and additional education can keep their data safe. So what is the problem? Facebook is too popular? I agree, but that is something everyone has to decide for themselves. I do think people who are frustrated about current global politics want to restrict the net in the hopes that people adopt "correct" positions.
MarkMc 7y ago
My preferred solution is for Facebook to assess whether a video is presented as accurate but has been altered with intent to deceive. If so, it is tagged "This video has been flagged as deceptive. Click here for details". Yes, from time to time I might disagree with Facebook about the accuracy or intent of a video, but it would be an improvement on the status quo.
- _cs2017_ 7y ago
  Then what would prevent people whose videos were banned from suing Facebook because Facebook didn't get their intent correctly? And similarly, people appearing in videos that aren't banned could sue because Facebook didn't see the evil intent. Such lawsuits can be numerous and costly enough to kill the entire concept of hosting user uploaded videos. How to avoid this? Maybe it's better to drop the intent thing and just ban any videos that look real but aren't? Even if it means banning some parodies such as this https://youtu.be/cQ54GDm1eL0 https://youtu.be/cQ54GDm1eL0 Even then we'll need to figure out how do it at scale, since a human reviewer will often not know if it's real. I don't think we can limit the ban to videos where you can see people's faces; you can create quite bad misinformation by showing a military boat of some country sinking a civilian ship etc.
  - codyb 7y ago
    I’m pretty certain Facebook’s terms of use would rule that out and probably already has a clause about how Facebook can use, share, or remove your content without your express consent at any time already.
freewilly1040 7y ago
It’s not as though you can use the magic p word and then what you did is parody. What’s parody and what’s not is indeed a difficult line to define, but it’s not a new problem or a problem that we lack prior art for.
- _cs2017_ 7y ago
  > it’s not a new problem or a problem that we lack prior art for. The prior art I'm aware of comes from the copyright, trademark, and defamation laws, but the definitions developed there are so vague that it can take a few months in court (and thousands of dollars) to decide whether something is a parody / satire. Here we need a rule that can applied within hours, at a very low cost. So I'm not sure how we can adapt existing legal definitions to banning videos on the internet. Could you describe in a bit more detail what exactly you propose?

raxxorrax 7y ago

I just want people to accept the fact that not everything you read/see on the internet is the absolute truth. Younger people learn early to navigate the web and additional education can keep their data safe. So what is the problem? Facebook is too popular? I agree, but that is something everyone has to decide for themselves. I do think people who are frustrated about current global politics want to restrict the net in the hopes that people adopt "correct" positions.

MarkMc 7y ago

My preferred solution is for Facebook to assess whether a video is presented as accurate but has been altered with intent to deceive. If so, it is tagged "This video has been flagged as deceptive. Click here for details". Yes, from time to time I might disagree with Facebook about the accuracy or intent of a video, but it would be an improvement on the status quo.

_cs2017_ 7y ago
Then what would prevent people whose videos were banned from suing Facebook because Facebook didn't get their intent correctly? And similarly, people appearing in videos that aren't banned could sue because Facebook didn't see the evil intent. Such lawsuits can be numerous and costly enough to kill the entire concept of hosting user uploaded videos. How to avoid this? Maybe it's better to drop the intent thing and just ban any videos that look real but aren't? Even if it means banning some parodies such as this https://youtu.be/cQ54GDm1eL0 https://youtu.be/cQ54GDm1eL0 Even then we'll need to figure out how do it at scale, since a human reviewer will often not know if it's real. I don't think we can limit the ban to videos where you can see people's faces; you can create quite bad misinformation by showing a military boat of some country sinking a civilian ship etc.
- codyb 7y ago
  I’m pretty certain Facebook’s terms of use would rule that out and probably already has a clause about how Facebook can use, share, or remove your content without your express consent at any time already.

freewilly1040 7y ago

It’s not as though you can use the magic p word and then what you did is parody. What’s parody and what’s not is indeed a difficult line to define, but it’s not a new problem or a problem that we lack prior art for.

_cs2017_ 7y ago
> it’s not a new problem or a problem that we lack prior art for. The prior art I'm aware of comes from the copyright, trademark, and defamation laws, but the definitions developed there are so vague that it can take a few months in court (and thousands of dollars) to decide whether something is a parody / satire. Here we need a rule that can applied within hours, at a very low cost. So I'm not sure how we can adapt existing legal definitions to banning videos on the internet. Could you describe in a bit more detail what exactly you propose?