4 ms·

So, Facebook is operating like TV did forever?

mikece 7y ago
I don't see how they have a choice. If they decide to exercise editorial control then they might be considered in the content creation business by virtue of exercising editorial control and forfeit immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If Facebook had to be liable for what was published on their system they would be facing the possibility of liability judgements many times their market cap. Link: https://technology.findlaw.com/modern-law-practice/understanding-the-legal-issues-for-social-networking-sites-and.html https://technology.findlaw.com/modern-law-practice/understan...
- javagram 7y ago
  That is the exact opposite of what Section 230 does. Section 230 allows platforms to make moderation decisions while retaining legal immunity for the user created content they choose not to moderate. However, this is currently being threatened by republicans in the senate and Facebook is trying to avoid them taking steps to reduce the scope of 230 (which was already weakened recently by inclusion of a sex trafficking exemption).
  - HeroOfAges 7y ago
    One of the biggest reasons Section 230 is being threatened by Republicans in the senate is because they believe Facebook has a bias against conservative content and viewpoints on their platform. If it's up to Facebook to moderate content as they see fit, I find it very unlikely they would find a way to do so without appearing to be biased against someone or something.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Of course Facebook has a bias against conservative viewpoints. You think the Facebook employees quoted in the article are referring to “misinformation” such as false assertions that our schools are “underfunded?” That is not to detract from the crazy things the right has said. But it’s impossible to read the NYT or HuffPo or the like without cringing over misleading assertions. And it’s not just those organizations. As a card carrying ACLU member, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve worked up a froth reading some email to members describing a case, only to be distraught when the representation turned out to be gravely misleading when I researched the case. I’ve started to notice that on HN, even EFF articles get some comments these days asking “wait, is that characterization accurate?”
      - kevingadd 7y ago
        So biased that they team up with major conservative news outlets and regularly consult with high profile conservative politicians and lobbyists, you mean? On an ongoing basis, conservative news sites tend to rank highly on FB's highest-traffic posts. If you want to live in a fantasy world that's fine, but please don't spread nonsense. FB has teamed up with Breitbart - a news outlet explicitly described as a platform for the alt-right, with a Black Crime vertical - for their new Journalism work, and Zuckerberg sits down with conservatives on a constant basis: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/10/14/deletefacebook-trends-after-report-says-zuckerberg-secretly-dined-with-conservatives/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/10/14/deletefacebook-...
        rayiner 7y ago
        The fact that Zuckerberg is getting in trouble for having meetings in “his home over the summer with conservative figures, including talk show hosts, journalists and at least one Republican” proves the biased context within which Facebook and Zuckerberg must operate. Zuckerberg is surrounded by people who are so partisan that the fact that he had dinner with “at least one Republican” is casus belli. Note that your own article discredits your premise that it is “nonsense” to suggest that Zuckerberg is in league with conservatives. Quoting a “normal“ Facebook user, it states: > “I think that it would be leveling the playing field if he reaches out to Conservatives because he surely reached out to Liberals,” she said.
        kevingadd 7y ago
        Fun how he "surely reached out" when news outlets tried to find a record of this and couldn't find anyone willing to confirm that he met with them, and his representatives refused to provide any examples. I mean yes, in a sensible world, he would be reaching out to both groups - that'd be fine! He's not. Also: if you want to give conservatives ideological representation, you can make better choices than Breitbart and Tucker Carlson.
        plurple 7y ago
        Are you really calling letting a website be shown as “teaming up”? Breitbart isn’t even one of the 200 paid news websites and you're acting like they’re best buds with Zuckerberg. It’s this kind of foaming-at-the-mouth hyperbole that makes all of this so dangerous.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
threeseed 7y ago
But TV stations curate their advertising. Many types of political ads are not able to be shown.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
alkonaut 7y ago
Political TV ads should be banned too. Would make it consistent and understandable.
lalos 7y ago
I didn’t now TV ads offered targeting and tuning ads to highly specific groups of people, why didn’t Cambridge Analytica use tv ads instead of FB? The issue here is the micro targeting based on the personality of the uses stringing them along without them knowing. It is known that CA used personality tests to craft specific messages. How can it be the same?

I don't see how they have a choice. If they decide to exercise editorial control then they might be considered in the content creation business by virtue of exercising editorial control and forfeit immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If Facebook had to be liable for what was published on their system they would be facing the possibility of liability judgements many times their market cap. Link: https://technology.findlaw.com/modern-law-practice/understanding-the-legal-issues-for-social-networking-sites-and.html https://technology.findlaw.com/modern-law-practice/understan...

javagram 7y ago
That is the exact opposite of what Section 230 does. Section 230 allows platforms to make moderation decisions while retaining legal immunity for the user created content they choose not to moderate. However, this is currently being threatened by republicans in the senate and Facebook is trying to avoid them taking steps to reduce the scope of 230 (which was already weakened recently by inclusion of a sex trafficking exemption).
- HeroOfAges 7y ago
  One of the biggest reasons Section 230 is being threatened by Republicans in the senate is because they believe Facebook has a bias against conservative content and viewpoints on their platform. If it's up to Facebook to moderate content as they see fit, I find it very unlikely they would find a way to do so without appearing to be biased against someone or something.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Of course Facebook has a bias against conservative viewpoints. You think the Facebook employees quoted in the article are referring to “misinformation” such as false assertions that our schools are “underfunded?” That is not to detract from the crazy things the right has said. But it’s impossible to read the NYT or HuffPo or the like without cringing over misleading assertions. And it’s not just those organizations. As a card carrying ACLU member, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve worked up a froth reading some email to members describing a case, only to be distraught when the representation turned out to be gravely misleading when I researched the case. I’ve started to notice that on HN, even EFF articles get some comments these days asking “wait, is that characterization accurate?”
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      So biased that they team up with major conservative news outlets and regularly consult with high profile conservative politicians and lobbyists, you mean? On an ongoing basis, conservative news sites tend to rank highly on FB's highest-traffic posts. If you want to live in a fantasy world that's fine, but please don't spread nonsense. FB has teamed up with Breitbart - a news outlet explicitly described as a platform for the alt-right, with a Black Crime vertical - for their new Journalism work, and Zuckerberg sits down with conservatives on a constant basis: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/10/14/deletefacebook-trends-after-report-says-zuckerberg-secretly-dined-with-conservatives/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/10/14/deletefacebook-...
      - rayiner 7y ago
        The fact that Zuckerberg is getting in trouble for having meetings in “his home over the summer with conservative figures, including talk show hosts, journalists and at least one Republican” proves the biased context within which Facebook and Zuckerberg must operate. Zuckerberg is surrounded by people who are so partisan that the fact that he had dinner with “at least one Republican” is casus belli. Note that your own article discredits your premise that it is “nonsense” to suggest that Zuckerberg is in league with conservatives. Quoting a “normal“ Facebook user, it states: > “I think that it would be leveling the playing field if he reaches out to Conservatives because he surely reached out to Liberals,” she said.
        kevingadd 7y ago
        Fun how he "surely reached out" when news outlets tried to find a record of this and couldn't find anyone willing to confirm that he met with them, and his representatives refused to provide any examples. I mean yes, in a sensible world, he would be reaching out to both groups - that'd be fine! He's not. Also: if you want to give conservatives ideological representation, you can make better choices than Breitbart and Tucker Carlson.
      - plurple 7y ago
        Are you really calling letting a website be shown as “teaming up”? Breitbart isn’t even one of the 200 paid news websites and you're acting like they’re best buds with Zuckerberg. It’s this kind of foaming-at-the-mouth hyperbole that makes all of this so dangerous.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

threeseed 7y ago

But TV stations curate their advertising. Many types of political ads are not able to be shown.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

alkonaut 7y ago

Political TV ads should be banned too. Would make it consistent and understandable.

lalos 7y ago

I didn’t now TV ads offered targeting and tuning ads to highly specific groups of people, why didn’t Cambridge Analytica use tv ads instead of FB? The issue here is the micro targeting based on the personality of the uses stringing them along without them knowing. It is known that CA used personality tests to craft specific messages. How can it be the same?