4 ms·

"We’re taking down these Pages, Groups and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted." Hmm...

by wzy 7y ago

azinman2 7y ago
FB doesn't want to be a content police, behind the principal of freedom of speech. They're instead looking at metadata that reveals that it's fake and attempting to pursue an agenda. I am certainly no FB apologist, but I think the language of 'coordinated inauthentic behavior' is a really smart one that well defines the problem.
- ryacko 7y ago
  The phrase is so vague as to be meaningless. They may as well have said “organized opinion setting”. I miss the time when there was a massive debate over the legality of removing the video Innocence of Muslims, to the extent there were op-eds suggesting that Youtube pursue an advisory opinion before removing it. Now it is all but certain that FAANG has the right to remove whatever, without question, without appeal. And in most EULAs, certain categories of dispute go to arbitration.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    They have always had the right to remove whatever they want from the platforms that they own. Whether or not you like that is obviously a different story. The loud ones used to be the ones against censorship, now the loud ones are the ones for censorship. The pendulum swings again.
    - ryacko 7y ago
      That is not actually true. The loud ones are always the ones with the bullhorn, allowed to them by the powerful. I would be for censorship as well, if successful libel suits against publications meant they would be removed from the internet for fake news. Sadly egregious errors in editorial judgment are to be protected over someone saying an incomplete set of truths that result in an erroneous conclusion.
      - ziddoap 7y ago
        Which part of what I said isn't true?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Well, is "organized opinion setting" something they should allow? What if it pretends to not be organized? What if it's organized by a government? What if the "opinions" are that the government organizing the opinions would be right to oppress those with differing opinions? Is there anywhere in there that you think a line should be drawn?
    - ryacko 7y ago
      Are we going to be arguing about reductionist philosophy? People are autonomic agents, yes. People share opinions, yes. Governments are comprised of people, yes. The line was quite eloquently drawn during World War One when it was illegal to protest the draft. Or the Civil War. There is no real answer to the question of whether is this immoral or moral, and thus I must voice my opinions.
- toss1 7y ago
  It is not so much about FB/TWTR/GOOG, etc. supporting freedom of speech. It is about evading being subject to responsibility for the content on their site -- they want to be regulated as 'nuetral' content carriers, not editors.
- vkou 7y ago
  FB is quite happy to be policing pornography and ISIS propaganda. So it is doing content policing, as long as that content is sufficiently outside the Overton window.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  > I am certainly no FB apologist, but I think the language of 'coordinated inauthentic behavior' is a really smart one that well defines the problem. This also defines well online outrage mobs. But I doubt they would crack down on them.

"We’re taking down these Pages, Groups and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted." Hmm...

by wzy 7y ago

"We’re taking down these Pages, Groups and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted." Hmm...

FB doesn't want to be a content police, behind the principal of freedom of speech. They're instead looking at metadata that reveals that it's fake and attempting to pursue an agenda. I am certainly no FB apologist, but I think the language of 'coordinated inauthentic behavior' is a really smart one that well defines the problem.

ryacko 7y ago
The phrase is so vague as to be meaningless. They may as well have said “organized opinion setting”. I miss the time when there was a massive debate over the legality of removing the video Innocence of Muslims, to the extent there were op-eds suggesting that Youtube pursue an advisory opinion before removing it. Now it is all but certain that FAANG has the right to remove whatever, without question, without appeal. And in most EULAs, certain categories of dispute go to arbitration.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  They have always had the right to remove whatever they want from the platforms that they own. Whether or not you like that is obviously a different story. The loud ones used to be the ones against censorship, now the loud ones are the ones for censorship. The pendulum swings again.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    That is not actually true. The loud ones are always the ones with the bullhorn, allowed to them by the powerful. I would be for censorship as well, if successful libel suits against publications meant they would be removed from the internet for fake news. Sadly egregious errors in editorial judgment are to be protected over someone saying an incomplete set of truths that result in an erroneous conclusion.
    - ziddoap 7y ago
      Which part of what I said isn't true?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Well, is "organized opinion setting" something they should allow? What if it pretends to not be organized? What if it's organized by a government? What if the "opinions" are that the government organizing the opinions would be right to oppress those with differing opinions? Is there anywhere in there that you think a line should be drawn?
  - ryacko 7y ago
    Are we going to be arguing about reductionist philosophy? People are autonomic agents, yes. People share opinions, yes. Governments are comprised of people, yes. The line was quite eloquently drawn during World War One when it was illegal to protest the draft. Or the Civil War. There is no real answer to the question of whether is this immoral or moral, and thus I must voice my opinions.
toss1 7y ago
It is not so much about FB/TWTR/GOOG, etc. supporting freedom of speech. It is about evading being subject to responsibility for the content on their site -- they want to be regulated as 'nuetral' content carriers, not editors.
vkou 7y ago
FB is quite happy to be policing pornography and ISIS propaganda. So it is doing content policing, as long as that content is sufficiently outside the Overton window.
ReptileMan 7y ago
> I am certainly no FB apologist, but I think the language of 'coordinated inauthentic behavior' is a really smart one that well defines the problem. This also defines well online outrage mobs. But I doubt they would crack down on them.