6 ms·

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

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
  - jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
    It doesn't matter who makes the content. Take for example, the New Yorker, which curates short stories and poetry not written by their own authors/editors. If they were to publish something inciting violence or otherwise illegal/immoral, they can't just throw their hands in the air and say "it wasn't me!", legally nor socially. Besides, I'm talking mostly on a social aspect rather than a legal one. I'm not a lawyer. But too often do we give Facebook a pass since it doesn't make the content, it only curates it. The curation is automated at a massive scale by AIs, and is done for each user, every day, but it is still undeniably curation. An example of a platform is if the user does their own curation. E.g. old Instagram. You got everything posted by everyone you follow, in chronological order. Now Instagram will change the feed order and time-delay/shadowban posts, making it, in my view, a publisher. Your SMS example is a platform since you chose to have your SMS's sorted by time.
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.

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
- jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
  It doesn't matter who makes the content. Take for example, the New Yorker, which curates short stories and poetry not written by their own authors/editors. If they were to publish something inciting violence or otherwise illegal/immoral, they can't just throw their hands in the air and say "it wasn't me!", legally nor socially. Besides, I'm talking mostly on a social aspect rather than a legal one. I'm not a lawyer. But too often do we give Facebook a pass since it doesn't make the content, it only curates it. The curation is automated at a massive scale by AIs, and is done for each user, every day, but it is still undeniably curation. An example of a platform is if the user does their own curation. E.g. old Instagram. You got everything posted by everyone you follow, in chronological order. Now Instagram will change the feed order and time-delay/shadowban posts, making it, in my view, a publisher. Your SMS example is a platform since you chose to have your SMS's sorted by time.

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.