4 ms·

> Is it reasonable to expect Facebook to do all those things, compared to other choices that are consistent, neutral, and inevitably result in various type I an

> Is it reasonable to expect Facebook to do all those things, compared to other choices that are consistent, neutral, and inevitably result in various type I and type II errors with respect to the nature and purposes of posts related to violence? I’ll grant that we’re in uncharted territory as far as the scale and depth of what a company like Facebook has to deal with on a regular basis regarding the amount and variance in the content that they see and manage. That said, Facebook constantly tells us how they want to change the world for the better. If that’s not just marketing bullshit and they want us to take them at their word, then they need to recognize that the position they’ve put themselves in demands a level of accountability and responsibility that they’re clearly not comfortable with. Ultimately, citizens should be able to define what’s reasonable to expect out of Facebook, not the difficulty of a particular content problem. Becoming one of the largest tech companies in existence doesn’t grant one immunity from real problems involving their content. If Facebook can’t manage their content at scale to address these kinds of issues, then perhaps they shouldn’t be managing content at this kind of scale.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The problem is that different sets of people have different beliefs about what constitutes accountability and responsibility. For example, the article criticizes algorithmic moderation of terrorist content as an abdication of responsibility, but many groups argue that manual moderation is an abdication of responsibility - the EU is considering a law that would require Facebook to algorithmically moderate terrorist content. That doesn't mean, of course, that nobody can have an opinion on what the right thing for Facebook to do is. But you can't abstract over the substance of the criticism and say Facebook isn't "addressing these kinds of issues" without specifying whose standards they ought to follow.
closeparen 6y ago
I don't understand this idea that "citizens" can hold the reins of censorship. If an item's removal is up for public debate, it was never really removed. E.g. it does not really solve the problem of Holocaust denial content if you still have people complaining that Holocaust denial content should be allowed. And it is not a democratic law anymore if you don't get to criticize it. Censors operated in secret and beyond accountability not because of some accident of history, but because it was essential to the nature of their work.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  Censorship isn't all-or-nothing though - spoiler tags being a common example. It stops you from reading it and says "warning you don't want to read this because X", then leaves it up to you. You could censor misinformation/etc with this method, yet still be held accountable.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    Disclaimers can be helpful but you’re still giving those views a platform, and horrible people who want to congregate and reinforce their views to each other can still do it. I don’t think this satisfies the anti-big-tech crowd, although I’d be happy if it did.
bostik 6y ago
The problem is much bigger than that. Can you tell the difference between terrorists and war criminals committing an atrocity, and a militia of freedom fighters delivering their brutal but understandable form of justice? Can anyone?
- jbullock35 6y ago
  Yes. Sometimes it's not hard: > In 2018 the BBC looked into a video circulating on social media showing soldiers blindfolding and then shooting two women and children in Cameroon.
  - bostik 6y ago
    Sure, sometimes you do get an obviously easy pick. But what I'm talking about are the amateur snuff clips where a small group of men armed to their teeth and dressed in camo stand in front of tied, bound and kneeling young men, the latter of which are then executed, one by one. And it's only later you learn that the young men were serial war criminals and rapists who not only committed the acts themselves but forced their victims to commit them on their own families, before feeding them a hand-grenade brunch. For us it's disgusting and horrifying. For the societies where it happened that's evidence of justice having been carried out. And the worst of it? If material like that was filmed on a Hollywood studio lot, you'd give it PG, or "15" at best. After all, what's not to like in a some good old-fashioned vigilantism?
- Xelbair 6y ago
  No one can. It all depends which side you support - the only option is to present both viewpoints in equal measure to 3rd party audience.
- dmurray 6y ago
  Easy - ask the US government which ones are the bad guys. If you get too far away from where they draw the line between terrorists and freedom fighters, your platform won't be welcome anywhere in the western world anyway.
  - 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The problem is that different sets of people have different beliefs about what constitutes accountability and responsibility. For example, the article criticizes algorithmic moderation of terrorist content as an abdication of responsibility, but many groups argue that manual moderation is an abdication of responsibility - the EU is considering a law that would require Facebook to algorithmically moderate terrorist content. That doesn't mean, of course, that nobody can have an opinion on what the right thing for Facebook to do is. But you can't abstract over the substance of the criticism and say Facebook isn't "addressing these kinds of issues" without specifying whose standards they ought to follow.

closeparen 6y ago

I don't understand this idea that "citizens" can hold the reins of censorship. If an item's removal is up for public debate, it was never really removed. E.g. it does not really solve the problem of Holocaust denial content if you still have people complaining that Holocaust denial content should be allowed. And it is not a democratic law anymore if you don't get to criticize it. Censors operated in secret and beyond accountability not because of some accident of history, but because it was essential to the nature of their work.

Qwertious 6y ago
Censorship isn't all-or-nothing though - spoiler tags being a common example. It stops you from reading it and says "warning you don't want to read this because X", then leaves it up to you. You could censor misinformation/etc with this method, yet still be held accountable.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Disclaimers can be helpful but you’re still giving those views a platform, and horrible people who want to congregate and reinforce their views to each other can still do it. I don’t think this satisfies the anti-big-tech crowd, although I’d be happy if it did.

bostik 6y ago

The problem is much bigger than that. Can you tell the difference between terrorists and war criminals committing an atrocity, and a militia of freedom fighters delivering their brutal but understandable form of justice? Can anyone?

jbullock35 6y ago
Yes. Sometimes it's not hard: > In 2018 the BBC looked into a video circulating on social media showing soldiers blindfolding and then shooting two women and children in Cameroon.
- bostik 6y ago
  Sure, sometimes you do get an obviously easy pick. But what I'm talking about are the amateur snuff clips where a small group of men armed to their teeth and dressed in camo stand in front of tied, bound and kneeling young men, the latter of which are then executed, one by one. And it's only later you learn that the young men were serial war criminals and rapists who not only committed the acts themselves but forced their victims to commit them on their own families, before feeding them a hand-grenade brunch. For us it's disgusting and horrifying. For the societies where it happened that's evidence of justice having been carried out. And the worst of it? If material like that was filmed on a Hollywood studio lot, you'd give it PG, or "15" at best. After all, what's not to like in a some good old-fashioned vigilantism?
Xelbair 6y ago
No one can. It all depends which side you support - the only option is to present both viewpoints in equal measure to 3rd party audience.
dmurray 6y ago
Easy - ask the US government which ones are the bad guys. If you get too far away from where they draw the line between terrorists and freedom fighters, your platform won't be welcome anywhere in the western world anyway.
- 6y ago