6 ms·

> Facebook policy chief Joel Kaplan, who played a central role in vetting proposed changes, argued at the time that efforts to make conversations on the platfor

> Facebook policy chief Joel Kaplan, who played a central role in vetting proposed changes, argued at the time that efforts to make conversations on the platform more civil were “paternalistic,” said people familiar with his comments. I think Joel was right.

renewiltord 6y ago
I, too, agree. Facebook is just an extension of the open society.
- 1propionyl 6y ago
  "The East India Trading Company is just an extension of the open seas."
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    Yes, a company which owns large chunks of India and has a well-used private army numbering in the tens of thousands, is a great analogy for a social-media company. </s> The East India Company was responsible, at least in part, for tens of millions of deaths in various famines, and to equate the two fails both by being ridiculous (Facebook is not a private empire with an empire), and trivializes the actual damage done by that institution.
    - 1propionyl 6y ago
      In much of South/South-East Asia, for many people, Facebook is the internet. (And remember Facebook Zero? Facebook was aware of and tried to engender this). https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id... A staunch defender of the EITC would claim they were "just" engaging in mercantilism and facilitating the exchange of goods, and the war and deaths were just unfortunate side-effects. Facebook is "just" engaging in connecting people and facilitating the exchange of information, and stoking violence and racial conflict are just unfortunate side-effects.
    - badloginagain 6y ago
      While I appreciate the invocation of Godwin's law, Facebook is absolutely a private empire with an empire; in context of modern society.
      - bpodgursky 6y ago
        You're not going to convince me (or hopefully, anyone) that an institution with an army that actually goes about the business of conquering and killing people, has any moral equivalence with a misguided (and I'm not contesting, destructive) social media company. We can say that things are bad, while at the same time admitting that in the past, people did far worse things. It's a new, different, less-bad-but-still-bad, thing. It's OK.
    - jboog 6y ago
      Defenders of the EIC at the time surely said "yeah some bad stuff happens but think about the squalor the average Indian lived in prior to the Englishman coming in and bringing great wealth to their country. Think of the untold famine and poverty we're helping ameliorate by bringing western Christian ideals and wealth to a primitive people. How DARE you compare some unfortunate incidents of the EIC to the human misery that existed before the Brits arrived, you're being ridiculous!! " People have always been able to use motivated reasoning to explain away the terrible externalizes of their choices when there's a shitload of money on the line. FB has been a tool to aid genocide, they've contributed to incivility in societies throughout the world while they're cashing checks but don't want to appear "paternalistic" of course so it's fine.
    - banads 6y ago
      Social media companies have played a primary role in overthrowing governments and manipulating elections across the world.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  You have to factor in how the algorithm rewards content that drives engagement. Without that, it's more like an open society.
- tarkin2 6y ago
  Disagree. It's different to normal society. Normal society encourages civility by offering the inclusion into a needed physically-near social group. Digital society deincentises civility by offering a multitude of alternative groups.
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    It's localness by homogeneity rather than geography.
    - tarkin2 6y ago
      A community based on geographic locality is the prerequisite for a functioning society and state. Anything that polarises that geographic community ultimately damages the state by attacking its precondition.
- cryptoz 6y ago
  Facebook admits to doing large-scale emotional manipulation of its users. They published a 'scientific' paper where they showed that they tried and succeeded to make 1 group depressed (hundreds of thousands of people), and 1 group feel happier (also hundreds of thousands of people). They psychologically manipulate people into depressions, on purpose. Facebook is not "just" an extension of open society. Facebook is a specific powerful corporation that makes immoral decisions to emotionally control their users.
  - iliekcomputers 6y ago
    Could you link said paper?
    - cryptoz 6y ago
      There are a lot of sources to read, including follow-up papers by other teams that evaluate if Facebook had "informed consent" (they did not) to emotionally manipulate their users. https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+paper+emotionally+manipulate https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+paper+emotionally+m...
      - iliekcomputers 6y ago
        Thank you!
contemporary343 6y ago
"If two members of a Facebook group devoted to parenting fought about vaccinations, the moderators could establish a temporary subgroup to host the argument or limit the frequency of posting on the topic to avoid a public flame war." Most of the suggestions they considered were fairly modest product design choices that probably would improve user experience. To call these choices paternalistic is a stretch. Also, the platform is already paternalistic - it polices nudity, pornography and a range of other legal content.
megamittens 6y ago
Unless Joel is advocating allowing nudity on the platform then he is just blowing smoke. Facebook is inherently paternalistic and Joel Kaplan is right-wing hack.
unethical_ban 6y ago
That isn't a bad thing. We are constantly influenced by design and society. It's going to happen. And in Facebook's case, with respect to Rush: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". Choosing not to build a user experience that disarms unnecessary conflict, or that can limit disinformation, is a clear choice. The idea of designing human interaction and government policy with the knowledge of how humans react is not shocking or new. Heck, the "Pandemic Playbook" from the CDC continuously references group behavior when discussing how to communicate facts to the public. For example: If you tell people to stay home on day 1, the public may doubt or tune out your advice. So what do you do on days 1-3 so that on Day 4, government advice is heeded? Get private companies on board, ramp up voluntary advice for some time, before letting the big news fall. If you'd like to learn more, check out Nudge by Cass Sunstein [1]. And another book by the same man, specifically covering the ethics of governments using the technique. [2] [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A5DCALY https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A5DCALY [2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JGME90E https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JGME90E
crocodiletears 6y ago
Honestly, this does give me much more confidence in Facebook's internal governance, even if the platform often bows to media demands. Much to the Chagrin of many on HN, Facebook is, and has been a fairly open platform to people of all convictions, backgrounds, and political stripes. Even if it has been unsteady handed at times. This, as well as their sorting algorithm may well be contributing to the collapse of institutional trust and cultural balkanization of the western world. To a progressive liberal or political moderate who directly benefitted from the economic and technological booms we've experience over the last 30 years this is upsetting, because the global order (and its associated stability) from-which they've benefited, which brought us to where we are is disintegrating around us. To me, hand-wringing about Facebook's relatively hands-off approach the political dialogues on their platform is just resentment about the loss of a prescribed cultural narrative and familiar cultural coalitions, the collapse of-which has given every stakeholder in their nation's future an opportunity to speak up for their own convictions and interests, in hopes that theirs will be the dominant narrative of the new political landscape. I wish these dialogues and factional aggregations were occurring on a more federated network. But so far as centralized platforms go, I can't think of any company more fit (that's not a compliment, but a lament) than Facebook to host them.
- skosch 6y ago
  > political dialogues That sounds lovely. Fake news (the actual kind), name-calling, absurd conspiracy-theorizing, memes that remove all nuance from complex issues, botnets that amplify anti-science/anti-intellectual nonsense ... aren't political dialogue, they're the breakdown of it.
  - crocodiletears 6y ago
    They're indicative of a collapse of consensus on the part of society. It could well be argued that prior to our current political era, especially in the US, that the political domain was largely constrained to a discourse on cultural aesthetics, wherein the Democrats and and Republicans argued over trivialities (on a broader national, not individual respect) such as abortion, marriage, and immigration, while they operated on an implicit consensus concerning foreign policy, and had a functional stalemate in terms of the size of the state, farming out many of their policy decisions to thinktanks, corporate donors, and well-established bureaucrats within our regulatory bodies America's role as international security guarantor, its trade policies, and its government's role in domestic affairs was never really up for debate, and it only really changed stepwise in a stochastic manner, responding to situations and incentives day-by-day with no conscious consideration to the role of America or its state on a broader scale. What we're seeing now, is large portions of the population coming to realize that that existing bipartian components of the political consensus - which I believe to be a legacy of the cold war, no longer serves their cultural or economic interests. This process is naturally fractious, chaotic, sometimes violent, and full of dirty tricks, because politics isn't just about flavor of the month policies anymore. We're in the process of reinventing who we collectively are, and what we want to be. As a result, we're running across real, fundamentally irreconcilable political and moral differences that have been buried for decades, as well as confronting the failures and controversies of our past. Many of those fundamental agreements settle neatly along class, racial, and professional boundaries. Others, not so much. Science denial and anti-intellectualism is the natural result, because much of science communication has become a carrier mechanism for policy prescriptions predicated upon society operating under a specific ideological consensus, when in fact someone of a different political persuasion might objectively consume the scientific data and come to a different policy conclusion based on the same data. For the less educated, who encounter proposals from scientists they consider to be politically unworkable, and which might rightfully be considered manipulatively framed, it is easier to reject entire specialized fields of research out of hand than to investigate further and attempt to conceive of alternative proposals because they lack the tools to engage with the information effectively to begin with. All of this is messy, but it constotutes a real political dialogue on the part of society.
pkilgore 6y ago
Imagine an average level of civility in a society `C`. Lets say users of your product, due to your product, operate at `0.5 C`. Is changing the product so they operate at a higher `0.75 C` or back to `C` "paternalistic"? Why? I can see the argument for moving `C` to `1.5 C` as paternalistic. But when you're already actively affecting `C` in one way, why do we moralize about moving it the other way? What makes down OK, but up BAD?
- tdhoot 6y ago
  Paternalistic is thinking you are in a position to define C and measure it.
  - deegles 6y ago
    Refusing to measure something doesn't make it not exist.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      But it does avoid becoming paternalistic.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    You keep on saying "paternalistic" as if it's a bad thing. I left another comment in this subthread suggesting it is not. Yes, some people are wrong and some are right. With government, there are basic freedoms that allow people to be wrong, and not to be incarcerated or unduly burdened by government policing thought. But society? Facebook? Even government messaging ala "The Ad Council"? Yes, absolutely, to hell with disinformation, trolls, and toxic platforms.
taurath 6y ago
Isn't it preferable to be somewhat paternalistic when you have paternal amounts of power over your userbase? Its not like giving up the power is on the table. There is of course the well documented problem of moderation - it inevitably turns into an issue of a subset of the users vs the moderators. Facebook gets by pretending to be neutral "platform providers", but they actively optimize for their benefit. They are about as neutral as a bathtub salesperson on water heaters. This whole idea that they don't have control only has the ability to stand based on the indifference of its users. I can only hope it eventually falls and the next grand experiment in mass social interaction is a lot more gentle for society.
AgentME 6y ago
>The high number of extremist groups was concerning, the presentation says. Worse was Facebook’s realization that its algorithms were responsible for their growth. The 2016 presentation states that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform’s “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” algorithms: “Our recommendation systems grow the problem.” They're responsible for 64% of extremist group joins. Is trying to change that number to 0% paternalistic? I assume I'm currently not responsible for any extremist group joins. Am I being paternalistic by not pushing people toward joining extremist groups? Is it only paternalistic if you first find yourself responsible for some extremist group joins, and then try to lower that number?
ironman1478 6y ago
I don't think this makes sense. It works off of assumptions that are clearly untrue. 1. Consequences of language on the internet are equal to that in person 2. Networking effects For 1. If somebody on the street comes up to you and says "hey I'm going to come beat up your family." At a bare minimum, the cops are being called and it is somewhat taken seriously. On the internet though, it is a reality for many people (especially women) that there are no consequences for such horrible language and communication. Also, people make different decisions in real life when it comes to certain types of language. I don't just go around swearing like in real life, but people are way more offensive on the internet. There are physical realities that don't map to the internet, that causes different communication patterns on the internet. For 2. When it comes to spreading disinformation through idiots sharing links to each other, the effect is much more pronounced than when a conspiracy theorists goes out to a street corner and starts shouting ideas at people or has a million signs. Its clear in the latter case they might have a few screws loose, however in the former, everybody's "opinion" seems equal, but we can't use our other senses to vet them and b/c communication is slow/unclear on the internet, we also can't have a protracted conversation to figure out what their ideas are and where they come from (something you can easily do in person). This then causes really bad ideas to spread because people have lots of connections on facebook and there is no good way of vetting people or ideas. The idea to not be "paternalistic" only makes sense if you think that communication in person is equivalent in every way to in person communication, which is fundamentally untrue. The only reason they don't do this is b/c they don't know how to solve this problem for N countries generically and don't want to be held liable for a policy that makes sense in country A, but not in B and causes potential legal issues.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

renewiltord 6y ago

I, too, agree. Facebook is just an extension of the open society.

1propionyl 6y ago
"The East India Trading Company is just an extension of the open seas."
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Yes, a company which owns large chunks of India and has a well-used private army numbering in the tens of thousands, is a great analogy for a social-media company. </s> The East India Company was responsible, at least in part, for tens of millions of deaths in various famines, and to equate the two fails both by being ridiculous (Facebook is not a private empire with an empire), and trivializes the actual damage done by that institution.
  - 1propionyl 6y ago
    In much of South/South-East Asia, for many people, Facebook is the internet. (And remember Facebook Zero? Facebook was aware of and tried to engender this). https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id... A staunch defender of the EITC would claim they were "just" engaging in mercantilism and facilitating the exchange of goods, and the war and deaths were just unfortunate side-effects. Facebook is "just" engaging in connecting people and facilitating the exchange of information, and stoking violence and racial conflict are just unfortunate side-effects.
  - badloginagain 6y ago
    While I appreciate the invocation of Godwin's law, Facebook is absolutely a private empire with an empire; in context of modern society.
    - bpodgursky 6y ago
      You're not going to convince me (or hopefully, anyone) that an institution with an army that actually goes about the business of conquering and killing people, has any moral equivalence with a misguided (and I'm not contesting, destructive) social media company. We can say that things are bad, while at the same time admitting that in the past, people did far worse things. It's a new, different, less-bad-but-still-bad, thing. It's OK.
  - jboog 6y ago
    Defenders of the EIC at the time surely said "yeah some bad stuff happens but think about the squalor the average Indian lived in prior to the Englishman coming in and bringing great wealth to their country. Think of the untold famine and poverty we're helping ameliorate by bringing western Christian ideals and wealth to a primitive people. How DARE you compare some unfortunate incidents of the EIC to the human misery that existed before the Brits arrived, you're being ridiculous!! " People have always been able to use motivated reasoning to explain away the terrible externalizes of their choices when there's a shitload of money on the line. FB has been a tool to aid genocide, they've contributed to incivility in societies throughout the world while they're cashing checks but don't want to appear "paternalistic" of course so it's fine.
  - banads 6y ago
    Social media companies have played a primary role in overthrowing governments and manipulating elections across the world.
tunesmith 6y ago
You have to factor in how the algorithm rewards content that drives engagement. Without that, it's more like an open society.
tarkin2 6y ago
Disagree. It's different to normal society. Normal society encourages civility by offering the inclusion into a needed physically-near social group. Digital society deincentises civility by offering a multitude of alternative groups.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  It's localness by homogeneity rather than geography.
  - tarkin2 6y ago
    A community based on geographic locality is the prerequisite for a functioning society and state. Anything that polarises that geographic community ultimately damages the state by attacking its precondition.
cryptoz 6y ago
Facebook admits to doing large-scale emotional manipulation of its users. They published a 'scientific' paper where they showed that they tried and succeeded to make 1 group depressed (hundreds of thousands of people), and 1 group feel happier (also hundreds of thousands of people). They psychologically manipulate people into depressions, on purpose. Facebook is not "just" an extension of open society. Facebook is a specific powerful corporation that makes immoral decisions to emotionally control their users.
- iliekcomputers 6y ago
  Could you link said paper?
  - cryptoz 6y ago
    There are a lot of sources to read, including follow-up papers by other teams that evaluate if Facebook had "informed consent" (they did not) to emotionally manipulate their users. https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+paper+emotionally+manipulate https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+paper+emotionally+m...
    - iliekcomputers 6y ago
      Thank you!

contemporary343 6y ago

"If two members of a Facebook group devoted to parenting fought about vaccinations, the moderators could establish a temporary subgroup to host the argument or limit the frequency of posting on the topic to avoid a public flame war." Most of the suggestions they considered were fairly modest product design choices that probably would improve user experience. To call these choices paternalistic is a stretch. Also, the platform is already paternalistic - it polices nudity, pornography and a range of other legal content.

megamittens 6y ago

Unless Joel is advocating allowing nudity on the platform then he is just blowing smoke. Facebook is inherently paternalistic and Joel Kaplan is right-wing hack.

unethical_ban 6y ago

That isn't a bad thing. We are constantly influenced by design and society. It's going to happen. And in Facebook's case, with respect to Rush: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". Choosing not to build a user experience that disarms unnecessary conflict, or that can limit disinformation, is a clear choice. The idea of designing human interaction and government policy with the knowledge of how humans react is not shocking or new. Heck, the "Pandemic Playbook" from the CDC continuously references group behavior when discussing how to communicate facts to the public. For example: If you tell people to stay home on day 1, the public may doubt or tune out your advice. So what do you do on days 1-3 so that on Day 4, government advice is heeded? Get private companies on board, ramp up voluntary advice for some time, before letting the big news fall. If you'd like to learn more, check out Nudge by Cass Sunstein [1]. And another book by the same man, specifically covering the ethics of governments using the technique. [2] [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A5DCALY https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A5DCALY [2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JGME90E https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JGME90E

crocodiletears 6y ago

Honestly, this does give me much more confidence in Facebook's internal governance, even if the platform often bows to media demands. Much to the Chagrin of many on HN, Facebook is, and has been a fairly open platform to people of all convictions, backgrounds, and political stripes. Even if it has been unsteady handed at times. This, as well as their sorting algorithm may well be contributing to the collapse of institutional trust and cultural balkanization of the western world. To a progressive liberal or political moderate who directly benefitted from the economic and technological booms we've experience over the last 30 years this is upsetting, because the global order (and its associated stability) from-which they've benefited, which brought us to where we are is disintegrating around us. To me, hand-wringing about Facebook's relatively hands-off approach the political dialogues on their platform is just resentment about the loss of a prescribed cultural narrative and familiar cultural coalitions, the collapse of-which has given every stakeholder in their nation's future an opportunity to speak up for their own convictions and interests, in hopes that theirs will be the dominant narrative of the new political landscape. I wish these dialogues and factional aggregations were occurring on a more federated network. But so far as centralized platforms go, I can't think of any company more fit (that's not a compliment, but a lament) than Facebook to host them.

skosch 6y ago
> political dialogues That sounds lovely. Fake news (the actual kind), name-calling, absurd conspiracy-theorizing, memes that remove all nuance from complex issues, botnets that amplify anti-science/anti-intellectual nonsense ... aren't political dialogue, they're the breakdown of it.
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  They're indicative of a collapse of consensus on the part of society. It could well be argued that prior to our current political era, especially in the US, that the political domain was largely constrained to a discourse on cultural aesthetics, wherein the Democrats and and Republicans argued over trivialities (on a broader national, not individual respect) such as abortion, marriage, and immigration, while they operated on an implicit consensus concerning foreign policy, and had a functional stalemate in terms of the size of the state, farming out many of their policy decisions to thinktanks, corporate donors, and well-established bureaucrats within our regulatory bodies America's role as international security guarantor, its trade policies, and its government's role in domestic affairs was never really up for debate, and it only really changed stepwise in a stochastic manner, responding to situations and incentives day-by-day with no conscious consideration to the role of America or its state on a broader scale. What we're seeing now, is large portions of the population coming to realize that that existing bipartian components of the political consensus - which I believe to be a legacy of the cold war, no longer serves their cultural or economic interests. This process is naturally fractious, chaotic, sometimes violent, and full of dirty tricks, because politics isn't just about flavor of the month policies anymore. We're in the process of reinventing who we collectively are, and what we want to be. As a result, we're running across real, fundamentally irreconcilable political and moral differences that have been buried for decades, as well as confronting the failures and controversies of our past. Many of those fundamental agreements settle neatly along class, racial, and professional boundaries. Others, not so much. Science denial and anti-intellectualism is the natural result, because much of science communication has become a carrier mechanism for policy prescriptions predicated upon society operating under a specific ideological consensus, when in fact someone of a different political persuasion might objectively consume the scientific data and come to a different policy conclusion based on the same data. For the less educated, who encounter proposals from scientists they consider to be politically unworkable, and which might rightfully be considered manipulatively framed, it is easier to reject entire specialized fields of research out of hand than to investigate further and attempt to conceive of alternative proposals because they lack the tools to engage with the information effectively to begin with. All of this is messy, but it constotutes a real political dialogue on the part of society.

pkilgore 6y ago

Imagine an average level of civility in a society `C`. Lets say users of your product, due to your product, operate at `0.5 C`. Is changing the product so they operate at a higher `0.75 C` or back to `C` "paternalistic"? Why? I can see the argument for moving `C` to `1.5 C` as paternalistic. But when you're already actively affecting `C` in one way, why do we moralize about moving it the other way? What makes down OK, but up BAD?

tdhoot 6y ago
Paternalistic is thinking you are in a position to define C and measure it.
- deegles 6y ago
  Refusing to measure something doesn't make it not exist.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    But it does avoid becoming paternalistic.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  You keep on saying "paternalistic" as if it's a bad thing. I left another comment in this subthread suggesting it is not. Yes, some people are wrong and some are right. With government, there are basic freedoms that allow people to be wrong, and not to be incarcerated or unduly burdened by government policing thought. But society? Facebook? Even government messaging ala "The Ad Council"? Yes, absolutely, to hell with disinformation, trolls, and toxic platforms.

taurath 6y ago

Isn't it preferable to be somewhat paternalistic when you have paternal amounts of power over your userbase? Its not like giving up the power is on the table. There is of course the well documented problem of moderation - it inevitably turns into an issue of a subset of the users vs the moderators. Facebook gets by pretending to be neutral "platform providers", but they actively optimize for their benefit. They are about as neutral as a bathtub salesperson on water heaters. This whole idea that they don't have control only has the ability to stand based on the indifference of its users. I can only hope it eventually falls and the next grand experiment in mass social interaction is a lot more gentle for society.

AgentME 6y ago

>The high number of extremist groups was concerning, the presentation says. Worse was Facebook’s realization that its algorithms were responsible for their growth. The 2016 presentation states that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform’s “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” algorithms: “Our recommendation systems grow the problem.” They're responsible for 64% of extremist group joins. Is trying to change that number to 0% paternalistic? I assume I'm currently not responsible for any extremist group joins. Am I being paternalistic by not pushing people toward joining extremist groups? Is it only paternalistic if you first find yourself responsible for some extremist group joins, and then try to lower that number?

ironman1478 6y ago

I don't think this makes sense. It works off of assumptions that are clearly untrue. 1. Consequences of language on the internet are equal to that in person 2. Networking effects For 1. If somebody on the street comes up to you and says "hey I'm going to come beat up your family." At a bare minimum, the cops are being called and it is somewhat taken seriously. On the internet though, it is a reality for many people (especially women) that there are no consequences for such horrible language and communication. Also, people make different decisions in real life when it comes to certain types of language. I don't just go around swearing like in real life, but people are way more offensive on the internet. There are physical realities that don't map to the internet, that causes different communication patterns on the internet. For 2. When it comes to spreading disinformation through idiots sharing links to each other, the effect is much more pronounced than when a conspiracy theorists goes out to a street corner and starts shouting ideas at people or has a million signs. Its clear in the latter case they might have a few screws loose, however in the former, everybody's "opinion" seems equal, but we can't use our other senses to vet them and b/c communication is slow/unclear on the internet, we also can't have a protracted conversation to figure out what their ideas are and where they come from (something you can easily do in person). This then causes really bad ideas to spread because people have lots of connections on facebook and there is no good way of vetting people or ideas. The idea to not be "paternalistic" only makes sense if you think that communication in person is equivalent in every way to in person communication, which is fundamentally untrue. The only reason they don't do this is b/c they don't know how to solve this problem for N countries generically and don't want to be held liable for a policy that makes sense in country A, but not in B and causes potential legal issues.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]