4 ms·
IANAL but I would assume FB is in the clear legally though as they're not actively blocking anything in particular, merely providing the tool with which admins
by kevsim 6y ago
IANAL but I would assume FB is in the clear legally though as they're not actively blocking anything in particular, merely providing the tool with which admins can do the blocking themselves.
- imgabe 6y agoKind of odd that they would choose to promote their product by touting a feature that is illegal to use.
- Barrin92 6y ago"it should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter."
- praptak 6y agoIt is not that simple. There's a continuum from writing a compiler to coding DestroyBaghdad. Usually people draw the line at "Is this tool primary purpose evil?". This tool is in a (darkish-)gray area IMHO. I don't think that employer blocking "fuck" or racial slurs is necessarily evil but it's not that good either. Automatic filters are pretty bad at doing their job, so filtering is a lame approach to solving anything.
- handoflixue 6y agoA tool that can block discussion of unionization is certainly a grey area. When you literally advertise "blocking discussion of unionization", I feel like you've left that grey area, though.
- kevsim 6y agoJust to be clear, I wasn't saying it's not unethical. Just not illegal.
- slg 6y agoThis is reminiscent of how Facebook used to allow people to microtarget job and housing ads to people based on protected classes like race, age, and gender. They ended up reaching a settlement and being forced to change their filter criteria due to civil rights laws. So I wouldn't be so sure that "merely providing the tool" is necessarily an entirely legal action.
- sterlind 6y agoThey'll probably move to categories or something that can be banned, rather than explicit lists.