4 ms·

> The problem with this opinion is that you forget what powers these platforms: Money. Section 230 allows platforms to profit off illegal and harmful content w

by d1zzy 7y ago

> The problem with this opinion is that you forget what powers these platforms: Money. Section 230 allows platforms to profit off illegal and harmful content with no responsibility whatsoever. That's phrasing it in a way that makes it misleadingly clear who's in the wrong: of course all good people will not want something like that to happen. The devil is in the details. How much does that "illegal and harmful" content help their bottom line? Is it making 50% of their income? 10%? 1% or less? After knowing the percentage value can you still make a general statement like "companies are profiting on illegal and harmful content"? Or the more correct statement would be "companies make extremely little profit on illegal and harmful content"? On the other hand, before proposing mandatory moderation for all user content on all platforms we have to ask more questions. How much would it cost if all content is moderated in order to catch that X% that is "illegal and harmful"? Everything has a price.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
> How much does that "illegal and harmful" content help their bottom line? Is it making 50% of their income? 10%? 1% or less? The problem is that nobody actually has that data (and they'll claim your point is invalid unless you have the data, which only they even have the potential to gather). Google and Facebook will tell you it's very low, but since they're ignoring reports of malicious apps on their platforms and restoring scammy ad campaigns after they've been reported and taken down internally, what they consider bad content is likely much smaller than reality. Honestly, with both the amount of flagrantly malicious content I see on Google and Facebook ad platforms, and the network effects that their participation has on bidding for placement, I would suspect that these companies are nearly dependent on malicious content for profitability. Another huge point is that a lot of legitimate advertisers are paying just to protect their brand from having scams placed above their own site in searches for their trademark. This is pretty close to an extortion racket. I think there’s a Big Short level event on the horizon where we discover some of the top valued companies on the planet are built on a lot more of this than they’ve let on.

by d1zzy 7y ago

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

> How much does that "illegal and harmful" content help their bottom line? Is it making 50% of their income? 10%? 1% or less? The problem is that nobody actually has that data (and they'll claim your point is invalid unless you have the data, which only they even have the potential to gather). Google and Facebook will tell you it's very low, but since they're ignoring reports of malicious apps on their platforms and restoring scammy ad campaigns after they've been reported and taken down internally, what they consider bad content is likely much smaller than reality. Honestly, with both the amount of flagrantly malicious content I see on Google and Facebook ad platforms, and the network effects that their participation has on bidding for placement, I would suspect that these companies are nearly dependent on malicious content for profitability. Another huge point is that a lot of legitimate advertisers are paying just to protect their brand from having scams placed above their own site in searches for their trademark. This is pretty close to an extortion racket. I think there’s a Big Short level event on the horizon where we discover some of the top valued companies on the planet are built on a lot more of this than they’ve let on.