5 ms·

I'd love Facebook to do more to prevent misuse of its platform, but I don't see why I should blame Facebook for Myanmar violence. Facebook at its core is a too

I'd love Facebook to do more to prevent misuse of its platform, but I don't see why I should blame Facebook for Myanmar violence. Facebook at its core is a tool that helps people spread information and opinions - not too different from the telephone or email. The blame for Myanmar violence should be placed squarely on the people that are spreading misinformation that incites violence. Even if Facebook does a better job policing content, don't you think these perpetrators will find an equally effective technology to spread their propaganda? If not now, then in the future surely they will? Don't get me wrong, I do think Facebook should police clear misinformation that can lead to human suffering, but it seems like the media want to convince me to hate Facebook. I hate the people behind this misinformation. And, I would love Facebook to get involved, but I don't hate them.

jeromegv 6y ago
Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethnic group, it's possible that among a population of many millions, some people will decide to act on it. Remember, those people might never have been exposed to it, it's Facebook that recommended this content based on the engagement the posts were getting!
- Fellshard 6y ago
  I fall on the side of 'curation and modification of feeds represents creative work and therefore makes the platform responsible' for this very reason.
  - ljm 6y ago
    Yeah, I don't think Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. get a free pass on this just because they automated the process and took humans out of the equation. They can't claim to not be responsible for their algorithms.
- jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
  I'm not sure why anybody falls for the frankly absurd idea that social media sites are platforms and not publishers. They choose what to show you, just like the NYT or any other traditional publisher. The only difference is who does the choosing---algorithms or humans. But that, to me, is just a logistical detail and shouldn't have an effect on the distinction between publisher and platform. To think that Facebook and other companies act as merely connectors between viewpoints and are really just platforms for free speech is ridiculous. From the article, no, Facebook did not "fail to prevent its platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence;" they published content which foments division and incites offline violence. The distinction is important.
  - MrMan 6y ago
    I agree with this. FB has succeeded in their marketing effort to be perceived, even by their detractors, as somehow separate from "mainstream media" when in fact they are one of the biggest media companies on the planet.
  - JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
    Facebook doesn't create the content that you share. Is Google a publisher because you have a gmail account? What we are talking about at its core is a platform that allows you to talk to people you know or might want to know. Is it objectionable that my text messages are displayed in terms of arrival time? What if I want it sorted alphabetically by contact but the SMS app won't let me? And you can still send all the same information to people you know off of Facebook or on peoples walls or through messenger. Facebook doesn't create the content, you do. So how are they publishers? Also, there is no meaningful difference between "publisher" and "platform" here[0]. So the entire conversation is built on a faulty premise. What specific regulations does the NYT have for showing you news? What specific regulations does Google have for promoting different sites? The NYT gets to decide what they report on, they have no obligation to show you "the other side". How is that any different than the FB algo? Now, their lack of moderation is a different discussion worth having. We can argue that it's harder to moderate at scale and be forgiving, or we can say that doesn't matter and that they still have the obligation all the same. [0] eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter
- fairity 6y ago
  > So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. Understood. Perhaps there's a more apt analogy. Let's say there exists a gun manufacturer who's developed a new type of gun that's particularly effective. The problem is the guns are in limited supply. The manufacturer ultimately cares about profit, so it decides to sell the guns to the highest bidder. Most of the guns sold end up providing value to society in the form of protection. But, in a handful of cases, the highest bidder happens to be a violent regime that uses the guns for ethnic cleansing. Do we blame the gun manufacturer or the violent regime? From this perspective, I agree that a small part of the blame falls on the gun manufacturer for not vetting buyers.
  - MrMan 6y ago
    lets say the gun manufacturer sees a presentation given by executives at a social network. "we can create conditions that drive demand, because our social scientists have 1/4 the planet as guinea pigs." gun manufacturer takes out ads, and also gives money to "affiliates" like Ted Nugent to create viral content. I am not saying that FB execs make such a presentation, nor that TN is directly funded by the NRA, but the relationships are all there - interested parties are aware that Facebook can create results.
- platz 6y ago
  > Those arguments always forget 1 thing. > Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow See comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25732255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25732255
- MrMan 6y ago
  yes it seems like the same stochastic behavior that drives marketing conversions - as numbers increase, expected conversion is almost surely going to happen. but regulation and complaints about the service always focus on the micro, the anecdote, the qualitative.
- matz1 6y ago
  >Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. But these all are algorithmic isn't it ? Its not like facebook decided to manually show certain content to some people, unlike the the silencing done to trump.
  - chopin24 6y ago
    People develop algorithms. They aren't some neutral force of nature, like a tornado. These are choices.
    - matz1 6y ago
      yes but is the algorithms include : spread only bad content ? I doubt so, the algorithms may be : spread content that increase engagement, without making explicit judgement whether the content is 'good' or 'bad'.
      - chopin24 6y ago
        Intention is besides the point. The only thing that matters is impact. For example, in US case law, there is the concept of Involuntary manslaughter: killing as the result of negligent or reckless actions.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        That doesn't matter at the end of the day. Facebook employee decides what posts to show you → Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher. vs Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm → Facebook computer program decides what posts to show you -> Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher.
        matz1 6y ago
        >Facebook employee decides what posts to show you Here FB manually decide what constitute 'good' or 'bad' content. For example: fb employee decide trump content is 'bad' thus not allowing it. >Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm Here depending on how the algorithm works, it may not make a judgment whether the content is 'good' or 'bad' as long as it drive engagement. So here 'good' and 'bad' content can spread equally. Here if its algorithmic then trump content doesn't depend on whether someone decide its 'good' or 'bad' but merely the engagement metric. I would support the later, even if the content that finally show up is something 'bad' because here fb is merely act as tools.
mcphage 6y ago
> not too different from the telephone or email Facebook is a broadcast medium, so very different than the telephone. Email is somewhere in between—it works fine 1-to-many, but not so well many-to-many. > don't you think these perpetrators will find an equally effective technology to spread their propaganda? Maybe they will, but that's hardly a reason to ignore these atrocities. Maybe they won't. Maybe future technologies will be more careful about encouraging people to join extreme groups because it increases engagement. > it seems like the media want to convince me to hate Facebook Nobody's asking you to hate Facebook, but you should be aware of the power they posses, and how irresponsible they are being with that power. You don't need to bring your personal feelings into this at all.
ng12 6y ago
I agree with you 100%. It's why I don't like that Parler is being forced off the web.

jeromegv 6y ago

Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethnic group, it's possible that among a population of many millions, some people will decide to act on it. Remember, those people might never have been exposed to it, it's Facebook that recommended this content based on the engagement the posts were getting!

Fellshard 6y ago
I fall on the side of 'curation and modification of feeds represents creative work and therefore makes the platform responsible' for this very reason.
- ljm 6y ago
  Yeah, I don't think Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. get a free pass on this just because they automated the process and took humans out of the equation. They can't claim to not be responsible for their algorithms.
jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
I'm not sure why anybody falls for the frankly absurd idea that social media sites are platforms and not publishers. They choose what to show you, just like the NYT or any other traditional publisher. The only difference is who does the choosing---algorithms or humans. But that, to me, is just a logistical detail and shouldn't have an effect on the distinction between publisher and platform. To think that Facebook and other companies act as merely connectors between viewpoints and are really just platforms for free speech is ridiculous. From the article, no, Facebook did not "fail to prevent its platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence;" they published content which foments division and incites offline violence. The distinction is important.
- MrMan 6y ago
  I agree with this. FB has succeeded in their marketing effort to be perceived, even by their detractors, as somehow separate from "mainstream media" when in fact they are one of the biggest media companies on the planet.
- JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
  Facebook doesn't create the content that you share. Is Google a publisher because you have a gmail account? What we are talking about at its core is a platform that allows you to talk to people you know or might want to know. Is it objectionable that my text messages are displayed in terms of arrival time? What if I want it sorted alphabetically by contact but the SMS app won't let me? And you can still send all the same information to people you know off of Facebook or on peoples walls or through messenger. Facebook doesn't create the content, you do. So how are they publishers? Also, there is no meaningful difference between "publisher" and "platform" here[0]. So the entire conversation is built on a faulty premise. What specific regulations does the NYT have for showing you news? What specific regulations does Google have for promoting different sites? The NYT gets to decide what they report on, they have no obligation to show you "the other side". How is that any different than the FB algo? Now, their lack of moderation is a different discussion worth having. We can argue that it's harder to moderate at scale and be forgiving, or we can say that doesn't matter and that they still have the obligation all the same. [0] eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter
fairity 6y ago
> So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. Understood. Perhaps there's a more apt analogy. Let's say there exists a gun manufacturer who's developed a new type of gun that's particularly effective. The problem is the guns are in limited supply. The manufacturer ultimately cares about profit, so it decides to sell the guns to the highest bidder. Most of the guns sold end up providing value to society in the form of protection. But, in a handful of cases, the highest bidder happens to be a violent regime that uses the guns for ethnic cleansing. Do we blame the gun manufacturer or the violent regime? From this perspective, I agree that a small part of the blame falls on the gun manufacturer for not vetting buyers.
- MrMan 6y ago
  lets say the gun manufacturer sees a presentation given by executives at a social network. "we can create conditions that drive demand, because our social scientists have 1/4 the planet as guinea pigs." gun manufacturer takes out ads, and also gives money to "affiliates" like Ted Nugent to create viral content. I am not saying that FB execs make such a presentation, nor that TN is directly funded by the NRA, but the relationships are all there - interested parties are aware that Facebook can create results.
platz 6y ago
> Those arguments always forget 1 thing. > Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow See comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25732255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25732255
MrMan 6y ago
yes it seems like the same stochastic behavior that drives marketing conversions - as numbers increase, expected conversion is almost surely going to happen. but regulation and complaints about the service always focus on the micro, the anecdote, the qualitative.
matz1 6y ago
>Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. But these all are algorithmic isn't it ? Its not like facebook decided to manually show certain content to some people, unlike the the silencing done to trump.
- chopin24 6y ago
  People develop algorithms. They aren't some neutral force of nature, like a tornado. These are choices.
  - matz1 6y ago
    yes but is the algorithms include : spread only bad content ? I doubt so, the algorithms may be : spread content that increase engagement, without making explicit judgement whether the content is 'good' or 'bad'.
    - chopin24 6y ago
      Intention is besides the point. The only thing that matters is impact. For example, in US case law, there is the concept of Involuntary manslaughter: killing as the result of negligent or reckless actions.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      That doesn't matter at the end of the day. Facebook employee decides what posts to show you → Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher. vs Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm → Facebook computer program decides what posts to show you -> Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher.
      - matz1 6y ago
        >Facebook employee decides what posts to show you Here FB manually decide what constitute 'good' or 'bad' content. For example: fb employee decide trump content is 'bad' thus not allowing it. >Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm Here depending on how the algorithm works, it may not make a judgment whether the content is 'good' or 'bad' as long as it drive engagement. So here 'good' and 'bad' content can spread equally. Here if its algorithmic then trump content doesn't depend on whether someone decide its 'good' or 'bad' but merely the engagement metric. I would support the later, even if the content that finally show up is something 'bad' because here fb is merely act as tools.

mcphage 6y ago

> not too different from the telephone or email Facebook is a broadcast medium, so very different than the telephone. Email is somewhere in between—it works fine 1-to-many, but not so well many-to-many. > don't you think these perpetrators will find an equally effective technology to spread their propaganda? Maybe they will, but that's hardly a reason to ignore these atrocities. Maybe they won't. Maybe future technologies will be more careful about encouraging people to join extreme groups because it increases engagement. > it seems like the media want to convince me to hate Facebook Nobody's asking you to hate Facebook, but you should be aware of the power they posses, and how irresponsible they are being with that power. You don't need to bring your personal feelings into this at all.

ng12 6y ago

I agree with you 100%. It's why I don't like that Parler is being forced off the web.