4 ms·

I have seen this question asked many times on such threads but have never seen a workable solution. Usually the response is something like "I'd shut the whole w

I have seen this question asked many times on such threads but have never seen a workable solution. Usually the response is something like "I'd shut the whole website down" or "I'd employ millions of moderators" or "I'd allow people to only post once a month" or "I would remove sharing links, only baby pictures allowed". Nothing practical. If you respond to any of these with examples of positive speech that would be harmed, there is no response. For example, if you curb political speech, people wouldn't be able to organise political protests. People wouldn't even agree on what should be considered 'political'. For example, is organising a BLM event political? Should it be allowed under the proposed rules? I'm happy to be proven wrong though. Maybe this is the thread where people will make practical suggestions.

munificent 6y ago
What is "impractical" about "shut the whole website down"? When it was discovered that tetraethyl lead was widespread in the environment and caused neurological damage, it was banned. Yes, that materially harmed several chemical companies whose livelihood was based on producing tetraethyl lead. So what? If your business model harms people, I don't care if stopping harming people eliminates your business. People matter. Businesses do not. Are we supposed to just go, "Yeah, we know Facebook is harmful to millions, but won't someone think of the poor shareholders?" Then shrug and accept it?
- dntrkv 6y ago
  Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. There is no shortage of sites that will take Facebook's place. What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?
  - munificent 6y ago
    > Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated. > What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people? I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.
    - nindalf 6y ago
      Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
      - munificent 6y ago
        > you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative. > How did you come to that conclusion? Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every... Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people. > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them? I did not advocate that.
      - claudeganon 6y ago
        I don’t think you have to shut down Facebook. Just shut down targeted advertising, algorithmic filtering of content, and a lot of their surveillance practices (e.g. shadow profiles).
freehunter 6y ago
Why is it our responsibility to figure out how Facebook can fix their algorithm? They employ thousands of the smartest engineers in the world and pay them absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. If they wanted to fix it, they would. As just random people on the Internet, it’s not our job to figure out how to fix it. It’s our job to complain about it enough to make them fix it themselves.
searchableguy 6y ago
I want people to pay. It will - Reduce majority of bots by making them unsustainable. - Provide direct money to improve moderation and make platforms liable. - Make journalism cater to individuals rather than ad networks. - Remove toxicity because trolls won't pay after getting banned regularly. No need for other fingerprinting methods. - Reduce the number of users and silo them automatically. Free business models are anti-competitive and result in worse service for the users by making platforms accountable to advertisers (other companies) than consumers. Force facebook to introduce minimum payment based on purchasing power. Outlaw free/freemium models in software or limit them to a time period (3-6 months). This won't apply to non-profit services. And open source will be fine since it will only apply to services or for-profit companies.

munificent 6y ago

What is "impractical" about "shut the whole website down"? When it was discovered that tetraethyl lead was widespread in the environment and caused neurological damage, it was banned. Yes, that materially harmed several chemical companies whose livelihood was based on producing tetraethyl lead. So what? If your business model harms people, I don't care if stopping harming people eliminates your business. People matter. Businesses do not. Are we supposed to just go, "Yeah, we know Facebook is harmful to millions, but won't someone think of the poor shareholders?" Then shrug and accept it?

dntrkv 6y ago
Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. There is no shortage of sites that will take Facebook's place. What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?
- munificent 6y ago
  > Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated. > What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people? I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
    - munificent 6y ago
      > you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative. > How did you come to that conclusion? Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every... Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people. > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them? I did not advocate that.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      I don’t think you have to shut down Facebook. Just shut down targeted advertising, algorithmic filtering of content, and a lot of their surveillance practices (e.g. shadow profiles).

freehunter 6y ago

Why is it our responsibility to figure out how Facebook can fix their algorithm? They employ thousands of the smartest engineers in the world and pay them absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. If they wanted to fix it, they would. As just random people on the Internet, it’s not our job to figure out how to fix it. It’s our job to complain about it enough to make them fix it themselves.

searchableguy 6y ago

I want people to pay. It will - Reduce majority of bots by making them unsustainable. - Provide direct money to improve moderation and make platforms liable. - Make journalism cater to individuals rather than ad networks. - Remove toxicity because trolls won't pay after getting banned regularly. No need for other fingerprinting methods. - Reduce the number of users and silo them automatically. Free business models are anti-competitive and result in worse service for the users by making platforms accountable to advertisers (other companies) than consumers. Force facebook to introduce minimum payment based on purchasing power. Outlaw free/freemium models in software or limit them to a time period (3-6 months). This won't apply to non-profit services. And open source will be fine since it will only apply to services or for-profit companies.