11 ms·

I don't see the phrase 'Facebook profits off of hate' as false, but rather that it is so trivially true that 'Facebook' could be replaced with not only any soci

by ve55 6y ago

I don't see the phrase 'Facebook profits off of hate' as false, but rather that it is so trivially true that 'Facebook' could be replaced with not only any social media platform, but any news platform as well, and the statement would remain true as hate is an inherently viral/profitable emotion. So I am not set out to defend Facebook at all, but rather instead to ask 'Why are we only recognizing the problem there, when the problem is a much more general and larger phenomenon?'

rewq4321 6y ago
This is moving the discussion into "whataboutism" territory. It's certainly true that there are problems with other social media platforms, but that doesn't really detract from GP's point.
- ve55 6y ago
  I'm not trying to morally justify anything by saying 'everyone does it', but just to mention the inconsistency with the blame solely being on Facebook itself, when as far as I can tell they are spending vast resources on moderating their platform (which remember, is absurdly difficult to moderate with billions of users) already. To improve the situation the problem has to be properly identified, and I think we can agree that if Facebook disappeared, the Internet wouldn't suddenly become free of hate, nor of malicious profit models.
  - rewq4321 6y ago
    The GP was referring to specific, widely reported-on instances of Facebook dropping the ball on moderation - one which Zuckerberg has apologised for.[1] It was absolutely a failure that could have been averted with better management and planning. It's trivial/useless to point out that that other platforms make mistakes too. Of course they do. That's not an interesting discussion. And, to address your new point about moderation being hard when you have billions of users: The thing about having billions of users, is that it gets you billions in revenue. In fact, revenue probably scales super-linearly with user count. Either way, the required-moderators-per-user actually decreases as you get more users because you can spread the fixed development costs of moderation tools (including ML models, obviously) over a larger number of revenue-generating users. From your comment, your key point is apparently: > just to mention the inconsistency with the blame solely being on Facebook itself I don't think anyone is making the claim that it's "solely" a problem with Facebook. People are just pointing out and discussing mistakes that Facebook has made. All of that said, Facebook is certainly doing better than they were a few years ago. For example, they now have people who can actually speak Burmese on their moderation team.[1] So that's a good start... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/facebook-myanmar-zuckerberg.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/facebook-myanmar...
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But look at the specific issue in question here: > The disagreement centers on a chain letter that spread on Facebook Messenger in Myanmar in September. The messages warned Buddhist communities of an imminent Muslim attack. Meanwhile, Muslim populations received a separate message cautioning them of violence from militant Buddhist groups. If you take that description to a smart, compassionate person who doesn't happen to know the 2015-2020 politics of Myanmar, they'll have no idea what the right moderation strategy is. (They're actually pretty likely to come up with a worse answer than Facebook, because the Burmese government is led by Aung San Suu Kyi, globally known from 1990 to 2015 as a brave fighter for freedom and human rights.) So this isn't just a matter of moderation tools; in order to moderate appropriately, Facebook has to be aware of all current human rights controversies in all countries. That's a high bar!
- bigbubba 6y ago
  It's not whataboutism since they're not defending facebook.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    Also it’s directly comparing the same topic on different sites. A whataboutism would be if you said “Facebook doesn’t do enough to stop mean but otherwise legal thoughts I disagree with” and someone replied “Ok, but Twitter is full of propaganda bots so that is worse!” People use “whataboutism” to deflect from perfectly valid similarities they just wish not to discuss. It’s not the argument silver bullet it is used as.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  I actually don’t understand why ‘what’s purism’ is considered so bad. It is basically the moral counter example demonstrating that your moral principle is likely unworkable in practice, or that your moral principle is too broad and is catching behaviors that most people don’t consider bad.

by ve55 6y ago

rewq4321 6y ago

This is moving the discussion into "whataboutism" territory. It's certainly true that there are problems with other social media platforms, but that doesn't really detract from GP's point.

ve55 6y ago
I'm not trying to morally justify anything by saying 'everyone does it', but just to mention the inconsistency with the blame solely being on Facebook itself, when as far as I can tell they are spending vast resources on moderating their platform (which remember, is absurdly difficult to moderate with billions of users) already. To improve the situation the problem has to be properly identified, and I think we can agree that if Facebook disappeared, the Internet wouldn't suddenly become free of hate, nor of malicious profit models.
- rewq4321 6y ago
  The GP was referring to specific, widely reported-on instances of Facebook dropping the ball on moderation - one which Zuckerberg has apologised for.[1] It was absolutely a failure that could have been averted with better management and planning. It's trivial/useless to point out that that other platforms make mistakes too. Of course they do. That's not an interesting discussion. And, to address your new point about moderation being hard when you have billions of users: The thing about having billions of users, is that it gets you billions in revenue. In fact, revenue probably scales super-linearly with user count. Either way, the required-moderators-per-user actually decreases as you get more users because you can spread the fixed development costs of moderation tools (including ML models, obviously) over a larger number of revenue-generating users. From your comment, your key point is apparently: > just to mention the inconsistency with the blame solely being on Facebook itself I don't think anyone is making the claim that it's "solely" a problem with Facebook. People are just pointing out and discussing mistakes that Facebook has made. All of that said, Facebook is certainly doing better than they were a few years ago. For example, they now have people who can actually speak Burmese on their moderation team.[1] So that's a good start... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/facebook-myanmar-zuckerberg.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/facebook-myanmar...
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But look at the specific issue in question here: > The disagreement centers on a chain letter that spread on Facebook Messenger in Myanmar in September. The messages warned Buddhist communities of an imminent Muslim attack. Meanwhile, Muslim populations received a separate message cautioning them of violence from militant Buddhist groups. If you take that description to a smart, compassionate person who doesn't happen to know the 2015-2020 politics of Myanmar, they'll have no idea what the right moderation strategy is. (They're actually pretty likely to come up with a worse answer than Facebook, because the Burmese government is led by Aung San Suu Kyi, globally known from 1990 to 2015 as a brave fighter for freedom and human rights.) So this isn't just a matter of moderation tools; in order to moderate appropriately, Facebook has to be aware of all current human rights controversies in all countries. That's a high bar!
bigbubba 6y ago
It's not whataboutism since they're not defending facebook.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  Also it’s directly comparing the same topic on different sites. A whataboutism would be if you said “Facebook doesn’t do enough to stop mean but otherwise legal thoughts I disagree with” and someone replied “Ok, but Twitter is full of propaganda bots so that is worse!” People use “whataboutism” to deflect from perfectly valid similarities they just wish not to discuss. It’s not the argument silver bullet it is used as.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
I actually don’t understand why ‘what’s purism’ is considered so bad. It is basically the moral counter example demonstrating that your moral principle is likely unworkable in practice, or that your moral principle is too broad and is catching behaviors that most people don’t consider bad.