4 ms·

Why isn't this between the mother and Facebook? Surely Facebook has some responsibility for posts on their platform. That also seems like a much more scalable a

Why isn't this between the mother and Facebook? Surely Facebook has some responsibility for posts on their platform. That also seems like a much more scalable as it can be part of flagging process.

kube-system 6y ago
Facebook really isn't in the business of intermediating domestic (or legal) disagreements.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  hun? They aren't an intermediary. The pictures are posted on Facebook. They are the primary. It doesn't matter who uploaded them to Facebook.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    They're neither an intermediary nor a primary party to the dispute. Facebook is not an arbitrator. The case, as mentioned in the article, was between a woman and her mother. You'd have to ask them or their lawyer why they pursued action this way. I suspect from the context in the article that it was a recurring issue, and the article mentions that it wasn't just posts on Facebook, either.
  - andrewxdiamond 6y ago
    Facebook is not in a position (and shouldn't need to be) to determine who has what rights to what images. They deferred to the governing bodies on this issue, and the courts decided that the parents had the right to demand the photo(s) are taken down. The parents could presumably now go to FB with this ruling and have them take the photos down. If FB did not defer to another party, they would have to determine if the accusing party has the legal grounds to demand the pictures are removed. How would FB know that those are the parent's kids? Or that the parents have custody? Or any other nuanced edge case? It's best for everyone if FB defers to the bodies that defined these laws for judgement. Otherwise, you'll end up in a system like YouTube where copyright protections are easily abused against small organizations that can't fight back.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      In the US, Facebook legally has to remove a picture of a child under thirteen if requested by a legal guardian. The sole proof required seems to be a check box confirming under threat of perjury that you are their legal guardian. And until your eighteen they have to take down any photos of yourself. The only abuse case I can imagine would be online bullying, there's little financial incentive like in your YouTube example. And for Facebook, refusing a legitimate act could carry fines while deleting a pic involves little risk.
      - andrewxdiamond 6y ago
        There is a big difference between "refusing a legal act" and refusing to act on unverified information. If it was a GDPR complaint, it should go through the GDPR courts. That's how the system is designed. Deleting a user's picture incorrectly is absolutely a problem. You now have an avenue for malicious actors to effectively DDOS users by removing all of their photographs with these GDPR requests
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >You now have an avenue for malicious actors to effectively DDOS users by removing all of their photographs with these GDPR requests My entire post was just detailing the US system already in place, where they have the powers you described. These malicious actors could only target people under the age of thirteen, there would be little incentive to do such except bullying, and the culprit would like face punishment. I would hate to see it happen to any child personally, but from Facebook's position there is no risk to them taking it down while leaving the picture up could carry a $40,000 fine.
        andrewxdiamond 6y ago
        How does Facebook know how old people are in pictures? I mean they invest a lot of time and money into AI, but I don't think they're there yet
boomboomsubban 6y ago
Facebook has a form for removing pictures of children, the privacy standard I see limits it to under thirteen but I imagine that's based on local law. I'd guess they went through the courts to prevent future pictures on Facebook or other social media sites.
tzs 6y ago
If all the parties had been in the US, a possible answer to that would have been section 230 of the CDA, which says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". That generally means that in the US unless there is some law that specifically says otherwise, this kind of dispute is between whoever posted the information and whoever wants it taken down. The hosting site can take it down on their own if they wish, but they do not have to. Does Europe have anything similar to section 230?

Why isn't this between the mother and Facebook? Surely Facebook has some responsibility for posts on their platform. That also seems like a much more scalable as it can be part of flagging process.

kube-system 6y ago

Facebook really isn't in the business of intermediating domestic (or legal) disagreements.

koheripbal 6y ago
hun? They aren't an intermediary. The pictures are posted on Facebook. They are the primary. It doesn't matter who uploaded them to Facebook.
- kube-system 6y ago
  They're neither an intermediary nor a primary party to the dispute. Facebook is not an arbitrator. The case, as mentioned in the article, was between a woman and her mother. You'd have to ask them or their lawyer why they pursued action this way. I suspect from the context in the article that it was a recurring issue, and the article mentions that it wasn't just posts on Facebook, either.
- andrewxdiamond 6y ago
  Facebook is not in a position (and shouldn't need to be) to determine who has what rights to what images. They deferred to the governing bodies on this issue, and the courts decided that the parents had the right to demand the photo(s) are taken down. The parents could presumably now go to FB with this ruling and have them take the photos down. If FB did not defer to another party, they would have to determine if the accusing party has the legal grounds to demand the pictures are removed. How would FB know that those are the parent's kids? Or that the parents have custody? Or any other nuanced edge case? It's best for everyone if FB defers to the bodies that defined these laws for judgement. Otherwise, you'll end up in a system like YouTube where copyright protections are easily abused against small organizations that can't fight back.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    In the US, Facebook legally has to remove a picture of a child under thirteen if requested by a legal guardian. The sole proof required seems to be a check box confirming under threat of perjury that you are their legal guardian. And until your eighteen they have to take down any photos of yourself. The only abuse case I can imagine would be online bullying, there's little financial incentive like in your YouTube example. And for Facebook, refusing a legitimate act could carry fines while deleting a pic involves little risk.
    - andrewxdiamond 6y ago
      There is a big difference between "refusing a legal act" and refusing to act on unverified information. If it was a GDPR complaint, it should go through the GDPR courts. That's how the system is designed. Deleting a user's picture incorrectly is absolutely a problem. You now have an avenue for malicious actors to effectively DDOS users by removing all of their photographs with these GDPR requests
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >You now have an avenue for malicious actors to effectively DDOS users by removing all of their photographs with these GDPR requests My entire post was just detailing the US system already in place, where they have the powers you described. These malicious actors could only target people under the age of thirteen, there would be little incentive to do such except bullying, and the culprit would like face punishment. I would hate to see it happen to any child personally, but from Facebook's position there is no risk to them taking it down while leaving the picture up could carry a $40,000 fine.
        andrewxdiamond 6y ago
        How does Facebook know how old people are in pictures? I mean they invest a lot of time and money into AI, but I don't think they're there yet

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Facebook has a form for removing pictures of children, the privacy standard I see limits it to under thirteen but I imagine that's based on local law. I'd guess they went through the courts to prevent future pictures on Facebook or other social media sites.

tzs 6y ago

If all the parties had been in the US, a possible answer to that would have been section 230 of the CDA, which says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". That generally means that in the US unless there is some law that specifically says otherwise, this kind of dispute is between whoever posted the information and whoever wants it taken down. The hosting site can take it down on their own if they wish, but they do not have to. Does Europe have anything similar to section 230?