3 ms·
They don't want to be held responsible for moderating content, so… they're creating an organization funded solely by themselves. How is that any different from
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
They don't want to be held responsible for moderating content, so… they're creating an organization funded solely by themselves. How is that any different from just doing it in-house?
- ohithereyou 7y agoIt worked well for the movie studios and MPAA. The MPAA ratings board has the veneer of being independent without actually being too independent.
- lonelappde 7y agoThe MPAA is an Association. It's a small government for studios. It's not intended to be independent, it's intended to balance power along its members. If there was only one studio it could do ratings in-house.
- ohithereyou 7y agoIt is likely that an organization like this will become a defacto standard used by all big social networks as a way to get government off their back, much like the Hayes Code and then the MPAA ratings board by the movie industry.
- daenz 7y agoBecause it lives outside of Facebook and can offer its services to other online communities. It's a smart play if your goal is to own governing worldwide speech.
- cheapsteak 7y agoThe amount of money required to adequately do what the world wants facebook to do might exceed the amount required to fund the 3rd party org If the org is not as competent as people wish it to be, the blame is somewhat insulated