3 ms·

No it doesn't. The customization could be done based on the source (Always/never show government officials posts, for example) or the votes of a trusted entity

No it doesn't. The customization could be done based on the source (Always/never show government officials posts, for example) or the votes of a trusted entity (the WHO, The White House, CNN, your cool friend who knows what is going on, etc). Plenty of empty gas bags have been identified by their reaction to Pandemic but also plenty of people who were right, early (and widely mocked at the time). There is signal there that users should be able to leverage.

johannes1234321 6y ago
I shortened my quote, for context the GP post had these examples: > e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") Glorifying violence isn't objective measurable. How do you identify matches to WHO guidance (incl. satire, valuable critique, ...) How exactly do you identify "political figures or of historical significance" sure, you can identify elected officials, but what about opposition leaders which often are not formally designated or cases where elections are disputed? And to be clear: I think the stance of "we are neutral" is wrong. And I don't think this can be offloaded to the user, while Facebook stays "neutral".
- zarkov99 6y ago
  I agree that "hide things I won't like" isn't going to work but I think that for people in good faith the proxies I mentioned would be good enough. That however would not afford FB or anyone else control over other's speech, which I guess is what you think should be possible? Can you elaborate as to why you think that would be a net good?
- mchusma 6y ago
  Hi, thanks for following up. So you say all these things are hard and not objectively measurable, and I agree. But Facebook is already making these decisions, so in some ways it can be described as lettings users opt out of Facebook's curation in different ways. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this case. Giving users more control is good. I guess to be clear on my stance, I think Facebook should be trying to be as neutral as possible, and keep making progress on that front, knowing it is impossible to be perfectly neutral in every way.

johannes1234321 6y ago

I shortened my quote, for context the GP post had these examples: > e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") Glorifying violence isn't objective measurable. How do you identify matches to WHO guidance (incl. satire, valuable critique, ...) How exactly do you identify "political figures or of historical significance" sure, you can identify elected officials, but what about opposition leaders which often are not formally designated or cases where elections are disputed? And to be clear: I think the stance of "we are neutral" is wrong. And I don't think this can be offloaded to the user, while Facebook stays "neutral".

zarkov99 6y ago
I agree that "hide things I won't like" isn't going to work but I think that for people in good faith the proxies I mentioned would be good enough. That however would not afford FB or anyone else control over other's speech, which I guess is what you think should be possible? Can you elaborate as to why you think that would be a net good?
mchusma 6y ago
Hi, thanks for following up. So you say all these things are hard and not objectively measurable, and I agree. But Facebook is already making these decisions, so in some ways it can be described as lettings users opt out of Facebook's curation in different ways. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this case. Giving users more control is good. I guess to be clear on my stance, I think Facebook should be trying to be as neutral as possible, and keep making progress on that front, knowing it is impossible to be perfectly neutral in every way.