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? That is their responsibility. If they have an unreasonable amount of responsibility, then it follows that they have an unreasonable amount of power. The solution is to take away that power, not to live with it being wielded uncontrollably.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's not uncontrollable. It's just controllable by a heterogeneous set of people with different goals, ideals, and policy prescriptions. Splitting up Facebook's power among a dozen smaller networks wouldn't change that fundamental conflict.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Facebook has a corporate hierarchy, and there are a small number of people at the top who have real meaningful power, even if they can't micromanage every decision. Splitting up their power wouldn't magically fix any problems, but it would lessen the potential damage one person or small group of people could do. It would also limit the damage an outside actor could do by abusing a platform, the same way America's "distributed" presidential election is safer than having one centralized election or one system that every state uses.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Sure, there are lots of reasons it might be better to decentralize. I'm just saying that achieving specific content moderation standards isn't one of them, because there's no reason to expect new, smaller companies to favor Human Rights Watch's preferred policies.
    - burkaman 6y ago
      Yeah ok, we agree. I don't think smaller companies would moderate better, just that it would be less of a concern when they do it badly. I mean there are small social medias companies right now that don't moderate at all, but it's not a pressing issue because they don't have much impact.
  - unishark 6y ago
    I don't see how scale matters to the moral question. Whether they are a giant multinational company, or a little personal blog, the problem is still there. They currently do not have employees who examine this stuff or decide if it needs to be reported to the authorities. You think the law should require it? If so why then shouldn't I also be required to read what's in my email spam folder to check for crimes too? Sure it's not very likely there's much there, but we aren't talking about a new law just applied to me. It would apply to all other individuals like me too, and 300 million people being required to check our spam folders and personal blogs may well uncover far more crimes than on facebook.
jdietrich 6y ago
Facebook want to be regulated, partly because they're better equipped to deal with regulation than upstart competitors and partly because it means that these dilemmas become the responsibility of government. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-...
- burkaman 6y ago
  Absolutely nobody is holding Zuckerberg accountable for anything he says in an article like this, so it's effectively meaningless, but we can still analyze it a little for fun. Note that he does not call for any regulations that would actually be new to Facebook. He only gives examples of things that Facebook already does, such as releasing transparency reports and adhering to GDPR. So I would read this article as "Facebook does not need to change in any way, but everyone else should be like us". Does Facebook back up any of this article with actions? Do they support politicians who would enact these policies, or do they evenly support all points of view so they have influence with everyone? Does Zuckerberg hold private dinners with privacy advocates and supportive politicians to discuss policy and strategy? Is Facebook a prominent sponsor of any organizations that are working to make these ideas reality?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It's not uncontrollable. It's just controllable by a heterogeneous set of people with different goals, ideals, and policy prescriptions. Splitting up Facebook's power among a dozen smaller networks wouldn't change that fundamental conflict.

burkaman 6y ago
Facebook has a corporate hierarchy, and there are a small number of people at the top who have real meaningful power, even if they can't micromanage every decision. Splitting up their power wouldn't magically fix any problems, but it would lessen the potential damage one person or small group of people could do. It would also limit the damage an outside actor could do by abusing a platform, the same way America's "distributed" presidential election is safer than having one centralized election or one system that every state uses.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Sure, there are lots of reasons it might be better to decentralize. I'm just saying that achieving specific content moderation standards isn't one of them, because there's no reason to expect new, smaller companies to favor Human Rights Watch's preferred policies.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    Yeah ok, we agree. I don't think smaller companies would moderate better, just that it would be less of a concern when they do it badly. I mean there are small social medias companies right now that don't moderate at all, but it's not a pressing issue because they don't have much impact.
- unishark 6y ago
  I don't see how scale matters to the moral question. Whether they are a giant multinational company, or a little personal blog, the problem is still there. They currently do not have employees who examine this stuff or decide if it needs to be reported to the authorities. You think the law should require it? If so why then shouldn't I also be required to read what's in my email spam folder to check for crimes too? Sure it's not very likely there's much there, but we aren't talking about a new law just applied to me. It would apply to all other individuals like me too, and 300 million people being required to check our spam folders and personal blogs may well uncover far more crimes than on facebook.

jdietrich 6y ago

Facebook want to be regulated, partly because they're better equipped to deal with regulation than upstart competitors and partly because it means that these dilemmas become the responsibility of government. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-...

burkaman 6y ago
Absolutely nobody is holding Zuckerberg accountable for anything he says in an article like this, so it's effectively meaningless, but we can still analyze it a little for fun. Note that he does not call for any regulations that would actually be new to Facebook. He only gives examples of things that Facebook already does, such as releasing transparency reports and adhering to GDPR. So I would read this article as "Facebook does not need to change in any way, but everyone else should be like us". Does Facebook back up any of this article with actions? Do they support politicians who would enact these policies, or do they evenly support all points of view so they have influence with everyone? Does Zuckerberg hold private dinners with privacy advocates and supportive politicians to discuss policy and strategy? Is Facebook a prominent sponsor of any organizations that are working to make these ideas reality?