4 ms·

One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another, especially when you're dea

One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another, especially when you're dealing with a platform that has extremely powerful network effects and controls so much of the information flow in society. To reiterate the point of the previous comment, would you feel comfortable if FB came under control of the Saudis while it was engaged in extensive vetting? I would not. Naval says that one test of a good system is whether you can hand the keys over to your adversary and things don't go wrong, which applies well in this case. Another problem is that vetting (/censorship) is often supported when it's "your side" doing the vetting, but I don't trust that any politically tilted group of individuals will engage in unbiased, non-partisan vetting. FB's staff is of a certain political demographic that differs substantially to the country at large and this will likely sway the decision making away from a fair and balanced outcome. If FB or Twitter engages in vetting I would like to see it done in a satellite office set up explicitly for that purpose where great effort is made to select individuals without extreme political leanings.

root_axis 6y ago
> One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another What's the disaster exactly? I keep seeing allusions to catastrophe and disaster but I am not seeing any specifics about the material effects of this catastrophe. > would you feel comfortable if FB came under control of the Saudis while it was engaged in extensive vetting Why would that make me uncomfortable? Like what are the Saudis going to do with Facebook that would be so terrible compared to what Facebook is already doing under current ownership? The Saudis in particular seem like a weird example considering the already prolific influence of SoftBank in U.S. tech firms. > Another problem is that vetting (/censorship) is often supported when it's "your side" doing the vetting I don't have a "side" with respect to what Facebook removes from its platform, I can't fathom a scenario where something being removed from Facebook can be accurately described as a catastrophe or a disaster regardless of who is doing the removing.
- hnracer 6y ago
  You can see the effects in China where state control of the narrative, achieved in large part by oversight of companies, has made their population completely unaware of the Uighur situation. Granted, FB is a private company so the extent to which it's a concern is not as big, but given the control that FB has over information flow and the network effects of FB, similar risks are present. Think: swaying elections by permitting misinformation that supports only a certain side. It's an extraordinary amount of power that has the potential to be used maliciously. At the moment it remains a hypothetical but given the China example it is not an unreasonable concern.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    I think the general concern with respect to foreign ownership of U.S. firms is reasonable to discuss, but I don't see a problem with Facebook removing content from the website regardless of the owner. Regardless of who owns Facebook there is going to be some content that will be removed, same of every platform out there, I just don't see what the harm is that something is taken down from Facebook.
    - hnracer 6y ago
      I think my main concern is the potential for politically biased vetting, which could lead to an election being swayed. It's a large amount of power over a democratic outcome by a small group of individuals who are not accountable to the public and are not guaranteed to be acting in good faith. It's possible that the fact-checking orgs that have been chosen really are neutral but given the political power they hold in their hands, and given my experience with human beings, I still do harbor some residual concern about this. They seem like a remarkably high leverage attack vector for cynical political operatives. I probably have to do some more digging about who these fact checking orgs are before I come to a concrete opinion, however. I will however admit that the alternative is also fraught with the exact same risk. Allowing various actors to actively spread misinformation can itself sway an election. Perhaps the best solution is to have vetting that only targets the most egregious, obviously false information, where the information that was censored (unless it is violent/pornographic/criminal), especially that which is relevant to upcoming elections, is catalogued and available for viewing by the public, simultaneously for accountability, public trust and to assuage conspiracy theorists that the vetting is political.

root_axis 6y ago

> One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another What's the disaster exactly? I keep seeing allusions to catastrophe and disaster but I am not seeing any specifics about the material effects of this catastrophe. > would you feel comfortable if FB came under control of the Saudis while it was engaged in extensive vetting Why would that make me uncomfortable? Like what are the Saudis going to do with Facebook that would be so terrible compared to what Facebook is already doing under current ownership? The Saudis in particular seem like a weird example considering the already prolific influence of SoftBank in U.S. tech firms. > Another problem is that vetting (/censorship) is often supported when it's "your side" doing the vetting I don't have a "side" with respect to what Facebook removes from its platform, I can't fathom a scenario where something being removed from Facebook can be accurately described as a catastrophe or a disaster regardless of who is doing the removing.

hnracer 6y ago
You can see the effects in China where state control of the narrative, achieved in large part by oversight of companies, has made their population completely unaware of the Uighur situation. Granted, FB is a private company so the extent to which it's a concern is not as big, but given the control that FB has over information flow and the network effects of FB, similar risks are present. Think: swaying elections by permitting misinformation that supports only a certain side. It's an extraordinary amount of power that has the potential to be used maliciously. At the moment it remains a hypothetical but given the China example it is not an unreasonable concern.
- root_axis 6y ago
  I think the general concern with respect to foreign ownership of U.S. firms is reasonable to discuss, but I don't see a problem with Facebook removing content from the website regardless of the owner. Regardless of who owns Facebook there is going to be some content that will be removed, same of every platform out there, I just don't see what the harm is that something is taken down from Facebook.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    I think my main concern is the potential for politically biased vetting, which could lead to an election being swayed. It's a large amount of power over a democratic outcome by a small group of individuals who are not accountable to the public and are not guaranteed to be acting in good faith. It's possible that the fact-checking orgs that have been chosen really are neutral but given the political power they hold in their hands, and given my experience with human beings, I still do harbor some residual concern about this. They seem like a remarkably high leverage attack vector for cynical political operatives. I probably have to do some more digging about who these fact checking orgs are before I come to a concrete opinion, however. I will however admit that the alternative is also fraught with the exact same risk. Allowing various actors to actively spread misinformation can itself sway an election. Perhaps the best solution is to have vetting that only targets the most egregious, obviously false information, where the information that was censored (unless it is violent/pornographic/criminal), especially that which is relevant to upcoming elections, is catalogued and available for viewing by the public, simultaneously for accountability, public trust and to assuage conspiracy theorists that the vetting is political.